Summary: A lot of EPO staff is fleeing (faster than the EPO is able to recruit) and the EPO’s marketing tactics have reached the bottom of the barrel

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is a lot worse than the USPTO in terms of its reputation right now. It’s largely the fault of Battistelli, who basically implemented a fast suicide plan for the Office. He brought his friends to management, he attacked the staff union, he lied to the press, he attacked the boards, and he even ruined patent quality while lying about it (citing a source which was paid by a PR firm he had wasted over a million Euros on). Even by a Republican politician’s standard/yardstick Battistelli has been a miserable failure and a cautionary tale for the Council. Why was a politician (let alone a Republican one) put in charge of a scientific institution in the first place?

The EPO was once a powerful, reputable Office with top-class staff. It was widely respected. It now looks feeble and this damages Europe as a whole. Dead EPO forums (with more threads than replies in this case [Caution: epo.org link]) are a symptom of this decline. The EPO's PR team just keeps promoting this in Twitter because almost nobody is participating and spurious, expensive events are being set up, even in the United States, where the EPO had IAM set up a pro-UPC event earlier this year. They are producing glossy brochures in America (Canada also — not just the US — as we shall show another day or later today) and the Office is going to Uncle Sam to talk about software patents (not really legal in Europe and increasingly phased out even in the US). Here is the EPO unleashing a new PDF [Caution: epo.org link] with some bland foreword by the sociopath, Battistelli. This event will start just over a week from now. The PR people are still asking all people to participate in Battistelli's self-serving lobbying event using irrelevant (maybe in error) introductions (the EPO lost track of the years, thinking next year is 2016 again). More curiously, however, they’re just 'spamming' universities at a very high pace right now (here are examples from the past few days [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]), hoping that these universities will mention the EPO or try to associate themselves with the EPO. There is no sense of shame anymore, is there? These universities, however, as we here showed before, rarely play along. They might have realised that Battistelli is a bad connection/affiliation/neighbourhood.

Right now, undeniably, the EPO has very severe recruitment issues (we saw the numbers and will cover them some day), but it shamelessly lies to staff about it. It’s almost begging for job applications and it lowered the requirement considerably (doing more harm than good in the face of staff exodus). █

Summary: Too busy paying journalists, PR firms, so-called ‘research’ firms (funded by EPO budget to the tune of millions per year) and other actors that help distort the reality (a rapid EPO decline), Mr. Battistelli has now become a huge liability to the entire Organisation and EPO staff should fight to save the EPO

SOME big stories about the EPO are coming next week and they’re nothing to do with the charade that’s now known (at least internally) for promoting frauds, not just those which the EPO falls for (yesterday it laughably enough warned others about fraud). The EPO keeps promoting the charade which wastes millions of euros of EPO budget and does not want the public to know that it pays the media for puff pieces relating to this charade, amongst others. The latest ‘survey’ of the EPO’s BFF, which the EPO now inevitably brags about, is one such example of paid media.

The EPO would like to make examiners at the EPO redundant (replaced by algorithms) and pretend there’s still potent examination, not just patent filing/registration. That’s the ‘ENA way’. Yesterday the EPO promoted a prelude to this. We are already seeing a reduction in patent examination quality and Battistelli is demolishing the Boards of Appeal little by little (understaffing and now fee hikes). The EPO is collapsing and while this collapse is happening Battistelli spends millions of euros on PR agencies and media companies, as well as commissioned 'studies' which attempt to distort this reality (that’s their job).

Looking at recent IP Kat comments, we come to realise that more and more people inside and outside the EPO (those who interact with examiners) come to grips with the above reality. It’s pretty grim. As one person put it:

What is kind of shocking about the proposal to have a self-financed DG3 because of self-financed UPC-courts is that it shows an utter lack of understanding of the function of DG3 and the UPC-courts by BB [Battistelli] and his freaks.
DG3 is a judicial instance, there to correct/review 1st instance decisions … such a correction mustn’t cost a lot of money for the appelant(in particular SMEs).
DG3 should be regarded as a futher liability of the EPO(rg) … similar to the AC – I do not think that they are self-financing.

… but well, what could one expect from BB …

Battistelli’s latest puff piece and masterpiece (warning: epo.org link) does not show him with violent tyrants, for a change. Why not show him with the people whom he habitually hangs out with rather than pseudo-royalty from Britain?

“An appeal fee of 7.350 Euro is insulting,” one person noted. “I am surprised that nobody so far mentioned that such a fee is a clear disincentive to file with the EPO in the first place.” Here is the full comment:

An appeal fee of 7.350 Euro is insulting. I am surprised that nobody so far mentioned that such a fee is a clear disincentive to file with the EPO in the first place.

For that amount of money, you can get your application translated into French/Dutch, file it as national application, and you get the search report together with an opinion from the EPO. After that, you pick just the two or three countries you are interested in and go there directly. Go for Germany – biggest market, no translation needed for filing and search, France/Netherlands – you already have the application, and Great Britain. That will secure two additional search reports (DE, GB). With some luck you will have a good overview of the relevant prior art. Infringement in Düsseldorf (DE), period. No hassle with EPO appeal fee, UPC, etc. All things considered, you are likely cheaper even without an appeal.

Sure, that strategy is not fit for everybody. As alternative, go EPO for the search, either with an EP or a PCT, and then proceed on national level, again completely sidestepping EPO examination and appeal. Going PCT will also avoid the nasty exchange of search results, making sure that the EPO does a proper search instead of considering mainly the national search report. The EPO did not lower the search fee when that exchange was introduced, although it is supposed to save time.

Poor guys who want 4 or more countries:)

reply to the above

The goal is to destroy/eliminate if not just marginalise the appeals process. Goodbye to EPO quality!

As another person put it:

Be careful with France. A direct French regional phase from a PCT filing isn’t possible; the application will have to go through the EPO. So you will need a FR either a FR first or second filing. As a bonus, a first filing will give you an EPO Search and opinion. Mais pour ça, il faut rédiger la demande en français.

Let’s not talk about the utter idiocy of the “PCTdirect” thing currently peddled by the EPO, where applicants are encouraged to amend their second filing in order to overcome objections of the authority who handled the first filing. If you like endangering your Paris priority and finding new reasons to go all the way to the EBoA, this one’s for you…

My suspicion is that through impossibly high work quotas, the EPO examiner will have no other practical option but to rubber stamp whatever is filed, without looking at it too closely, unless he feels suicidal and/or wants to end up a homeless wino sleeping under the bridge. But everything is fine, since the EPO is ISO 9001 certified.

Here is a reference to neoliberalism in relation to this:

As Lord Darlington observed, more than a century ago, a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Do we have more cynics in the world today? I think so. Everywhere one looks (as a patent attorney) one sees Administrative Council members, business people, economists and politicians monetarizing everything, as fast as they can, putting a price on everything, with nary a thought about the value that they are destroying.

But there are a few straws in the wind (politicians take note). In particular, the economists heading up research at the IMF have started to put out Papers that argue that neoliberalism is routinely destroying more value than it creates. It is easy to price everything, very hard to quantify “value”. Measuring what you can measure and dismissing any thought about anything else might be excusable in a professor of economics but not for a politician or business person.

So perhaps it’s not too late for the AC, first to see the error of BB’s Master of Business Administration ways, and second to do their F-ing job, namely exercise some control over their attack dog, and curb the beast. In 40 years since the creation of the European Patent Convention, it has come to be the world’s premier (go to) corpus of rational patent law, thanks to DG3 at the EPO. Europe has precious little “soft power” in the world today, but here is a jewel in its soft power crown.

Meanwhile BB, in what seems to be a bizarre and ever-more emotional fit of pique, is bent on wiping it out, regardless of the cost. In my opinion, a disgrace, a tragedy, and deeply lamentable.

The following last comment on this subject is referring to the attack dog of Battistelli, who faces criminal charges in Croatia:

Just two quick points.

As far as I was aware, it’s not BB who claims to be an MBA but the one who signed off on this.

http://www.dziv.hr/files/File/go-izvjesca/godisnje_izvjesce_2010.pdf

Apropos exercising control over the attack dog, haven’t you ever heard the old adage “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. The guys to exercise control are the ones in the ministeries. Refer to Article 4a EPC. Long overdue by now.

Our goal is not to destroy the EPO but to save it. The one destroying the EPO right now is Battistelli, along with his team which has blind loyalty to him. Battistelli ought to be sacked this month in order to save the EPO. █

Summary: What makes Portugal rather unique when it comes to Mr. Battistelli, who is allegedly desperate for support from smaller countries whose vote is easier to ‘win’

EARLIER today we wrote about rumours that Battistelli would pursue an extension of Topić's appointment and we also wrote about rumours regarding ‘buying’ of votes or how Battistelli was getting small nations on his side.

“It is said that one of the delegations which is strongly pro-Battistelli is Portugal,” a source told us. “By a curious coincidence, the “Inventor of the Year” extravaganza will take place in Lisbon on the 9th of June.” (warning: epo.org link)

“Campinos from the recently rebranded EUIPO in Alicante (formerly the European Trademark Office) is Portuguese and he is reputed to be a close ally of Battistelli.”
      –AnonymousSince the EPO is not connected to the EU and the Lisbon Treaty was repeatedly snubbed by the EPO's interests, the choice of Lisbon is interesting to say the least. Not many patent applications come to the EPO from Portugal, so is the location politically-motivated?

“It is rumoured,” we were told, “that the Portuguese President is scheduled to attend the event so this seems to confirm the rumour that Portugal is solidly behind Battistelli.

“It’s not clear what role, if any, António Campinos might have in this. Campinos from the recently rebranded EUIPO in Alicante (formerly the European Trademark Office) is Portuguese and he is reputed to be a close ally of Battistelli.”

“There will be EPO protests on the same day in all EPO sites, so coverage might turn out to be embarrassing again (if “media partners” are allowed to act as journalists rather than EPO stenographers).”We wrote about the connection between Battistelli and Campinos a few months ago.

“By another curious coincidence,” our source added, “Campinos is also on the jury for the “Inventor of the Year” award.” (warning: epo.org link)

It is worth noting that this year, unlike last year, the EPO has got FTI Consulting helping it (US PR firm with massive but undeclared budget), so “media partners” like CNN are listed in the page along with the Financial Times (which often repeats the PR of the EPO), Les Echos (which censored itself for the EPO last year), Handelsblatt, ViEUws (source of puff pieces for corporate agenda in Europe and softball interviews with Battistelli, UPC promotion), and finally euronews. There will be EPO protests on the same day in all EPO sites, so coverage might turn out to be embarrassing again (if “media partners” are allowed to act as journalists rather than EPO stenographers). █

Summary: In an effort to create demand for software patents again, patent lawyers produce a huge heap of so-called ‘analyses’ which piggyback just one single decision (the exception, not the norm)

OUR previous article, which criticised IAM for meddling in Asian ‘IP’ policy (despite having no writers at all who are oriental), deals with a broader kind of issue. The media is occupied/dominated by people whose interest (or business model) is not to inform but to promote sponsors' agenda. Here we have IAM’s Ellis on Alice, bemoaning what he calls “[a]n increasingly anti-patentee environment in the United States,” arguing that it “means that patent monetisation-focused businesses [i.e. patent trolls] are finding life tougher today than in years gone by.” Remember that IAM is being paid by patent trolls.

“Consider the fact that the main source of funding to IAM is indeed patent lawyers, or their firms at least (they are also quite likely the subscribers, i.e. those who pay IAM for periodic placements, for overpriced ‘magazines’, and for bias).”Ellis speaks as though he is a patent lawyer infatuated with software patents, or patent maximalism in general (a growing problem at the USPTO). Consider the fact that the main source of funding to IAM is indeed patent lawyers, or their firms at least (they are also quite likely the subscribers, i.e. those who pay IAM for periodic placements, for overpriced ‘magazines’, and for bias).

Alice is universally accepted as a good thing, both by software developers and ordinary customers who buy products. It’s only patent lawyers and few monopolists like IBM who bemoan Alice. Earlier this month we cited dozens of so-called ‘analyses’ from all sorts of patent lawyers. They suddenly woke up and made a lot of noise because of one single case. What patent lawyers call “analysis” is usually marketing, in the same way that ‘studies’ are lobbying (it’s selling something, it’s not a public service).

Watch how patent lawyers still latch onto one single CAFC case in a desperate effort to revive software patents in the US while the USPTO takes advantage of the situation as well (see Michael Best & Friedrich LLP’s ‘article’ also). The most vocal propaganda site of software patents wants to push Congress towards abolishing Alice altogether, as one might expect. It’s clear that SCOTUS won’t be changing its ruling (on Alice or any case like it) any time soon (based on lists of upcoming cases), so the patent lawyers are in panic mode and they bombard the media with articles about TLI Communications (latest examples are in [1, 2]) and Enfish (this new one is from Mark Patrick of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP).

“They’re distorting the record in order to help them sell their ‘services’.”Where are software developers in all this? Patent lawyers are cherry-picking cases for software patents lobbying again (see “Good News for Software Patents?”) and Fox Rothschild LLP is trying to salvage software patent in the US (because they’re still dying) using this fine art of cherry-picking. So did Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. We are seeing such lobbying/marketing several times per day now, even weeks after the CAFC rulings. It drowns out any meaningless/objective analyses. Consider this ‘analysis’ titled “Federal Circuit Finds Claims Valid Under § 101 For Only The Second Time in Almost Two Years” (2 among so many more, but they only measure the fraction of the glass that’s full).

To use another example of cherry-picking, see this new coverage regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101. It says: “The magistrate judge recommended denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patents for categorizing summarized information for lack of patentable subject matter because defendant failed to establish that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea.”

“It’s often called bias by omission.”In summary, we are still finding lots of software patents propaganda from patent law firms that occupy the media. They’re distorting the record in order to help them sell their ‘services’. One may easily be lured into the illusion or fantasy that software patents are alive and well, probably because there’s about 100 times more coverage of cases where courts accept a software patent. It’s often called bias by omission. █

Article as ODF

Publicado en Decepcción, Europa, Marketing, Patentes at 1:28 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: La exágerada extravagancia (desperdicio de dinero) en la Ceremonia de Premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO tendrá que competir por atención de los medios con miles de empleados de la EPO (en todaslas sedes de la EPO) marchándo en las calles para protestar por los abusos de la EPO

LA EPO se convirtió en un gran foco de escándalos y es la culpa de Battistelli conjuntamente con su ‘circulo’, quienes subvierten la democracia y trabajan burlando (si no atropellándo) a la EPC. En esta etapa, para las personas que trabajan en la EPO, la pregunta clave para contestar no es“¿por que protestar?” pero “¿porqué NO protestar?”

En unos pocos años, habiéndo existido y prosperádo por muchas décadas (casi la mitad de un siglo), la Oficina (EPO) se ha convertido en fuente de burla y una fuente de escándalos sin precedencia en Europa. Esto causa daño a la institución (o Organización) en su totalidad, trayéndola a un estado de crisis (por admisión propia) si no al borde del colapso. ¿Qué futuro habra para los examinadores de la EPO si completamente incompetentes idiótas y sinverguenzas como Battistelli permanencen a cargo por unos años más? La EPO ahora dañá la legitimidad de la Unión Europea en su totalidad. Esto no es bueno.

“En unos pocos años, habiéndo existido y prosperádo por muchas décadas (casi la mitad de un siglo), la Oficina (EPO) se ha convertido en fuente de burla y una fuente de escándalos sin precedencia en Europa.”

Temprano este mes oficiáles Franceses observaron una protesta en la EPO en Munich. Otros oficiales Franceses se han dado cuenta de la situación. Como alguién cercano a estas acciónes lo puso (no a nosotros directa o indirectamente): “El gobierno Frances ha sido informado completamente del problema causado por su compatriota el Sr.Battistelli, entre otros por el Sr. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, el Sr Philip Cordery, Srta. Claudine Lepage y otros. Pero no hemos visto mucho esfuérzo (diplomático o de otra manera) del gobierno Frances para enfrentar la situación. Por lo tanto me parece [sic] que debemos recordárselo al gobierno Frances. La demostración ha sido autorizada por las autoridades locales competentes en Alemania.”

Separádamente en relación a estas acciónes, una persona escribió: “Los empleados no deberían esperar que el calvario llegue de su propio impulso y resolver los problemas de la EPO, o que rescate a sus empleados. Para mi el observador de afuera notará el estado de decadencia (cantidad, calidad, motivación, servicio, etc…), será demasiado tarde. He aquí es ahora el tiempo que los empleados demuestre al mundo que la EPO no es como su ¨Presidente¨ lo describe, o dejar que la Gazette intente hacerlo pareces. De acuerdo a la Technologia Survey, la realidad hoy es que la situcación en la EPO es peor que nunca: para aquellos“férus de Benchmarking”, es reportadamente peor que la crisis en la France Télécom lo fué…”

“La EPO ahora dañá la legitimidad de la Unión Europea en su totalidad. Esto no es bueno.”

Hay varios falsos ‘estudios’ preparándose en este momento. Sabemos acerca de estos y sabemos que fuéron designados (por la gerencia de la EPO) para hacerse propaganda. Son como grupos de interes o cabilderos, no encuéstas genuínas o investigación, por razones notadas aqui este mes. En adición a estos llamados ‘estudios’ (producidos para ayudar a influenciar a políticos) también hay ese estúpido evento de propaganda el cual se esfuérza en crear falso cubrimiénto de prensa de “socios en los medios” de la EPO. SUEPO ha organizado una demostración que coincidirá con este evento de propaganda, pero no esperamos que los “socios en los medios” de la EPO incluso menciónen tal demostración, habiéndo sido testigos de como ellos borraron parrafos enteros cuando cometiéron el horrible ‘error’ de cubrir el crticismo durante el evento mismo. He aquí las palabras de la SUEPO, notándo la falta de progreso de Battistelli (debería ser despedido brevemente después de este evento al menos que se las arregle para ‘comprar’/asegurar su puesto de maneras nefástas por las que ya es conocido. Para citar: “No hay progreso en los reclamos de los empleados (ver e.g. la última llamada a la huegla: “Ilegalidad en la EPO”). También no hay señal que el sr. Battistelli intente respetar la resolución de Marzo del Consejo Administrativo. Al contrario: nuevas controversiáles reformas estan planeados (plan de salud de la EPO, procedimiénto de despido, obligaciónes posterióres al empleo), algunas ya para ser decididas en la próxima reunión del Consejo Administrativo el 29-30 de Junio. Para resáltar la falta de progreso al Consejo Administrativo una demostración es planeada en cuatro sitios para el Jueves 9 de Junio. La demostración coincidirá con la ceremonia de premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO en Lisboa.”

Esto es un oportunismo astuto. La huelga debería coincidir con la reunión del Consejo Administrativo, pero el equipo Battistelli usó lo que pareció (en ese momento) tácticas dilatorias. “La demostración coincidirá con la ceremonia de premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO en Lisboa,” dice lo de arriba. Va a dañar al equipo Battistelli donde duele más por que la gente de relaciónes públicas de la EPO está trabajando el fin de semana de nuevo (ambos Sábado y Domingo), ayudándo a distraer de los escándalos [1, 2] usando la mencionada ceremonia. Simplemente es ‘control de daños’ y esto es todo lo que han estado haciéndo por un mes ahora. ¿Puede la SUEPO aplastar este evento de propagánda? Si no, ¿Cómo tomar como objetivo al ‘baby’ de Battistelli, la UPC?

“La huelga debería coincidir con la reunión del Consejo Administrativo, pero el equipo Battistelli usó lo que pareció (en ese momento) tácticas dilatorias.”

De acuérdo a este nuevo tweet, El equipo Battistelli todavíá esta en modo de profecía autocumplible (tratándo de pretender de que ya es un hecho, cuándo incluso no lo es) acerca de la UPC. Para citar: “Es interesánte que los tipos de la cabina de información de la EPO en la AIPLA estaban confíados que Brexit fallaríá–Whistling pasando el cementerio?”

Recuérden que la UPC está en riésgo en lo que viene a Brexit y es cualquier cosa pero algo definitivo por varias otras razónez. Incluso el vocero de la EPO, escribiéndo acerca de casi novia de la EPO, finalmente reconoce que Brexit importa (algunos abogados británicos trataron de negar esto anteriórmente). Para citar las columnas de hoy del editor de IAM: “En un mes y un día el electorado del Reino Unido decidirá el inmediato y talvez permanente futuro de la propuesta patente unitaria de la EU y el régimen de la Corte de Patentes Unitaria. Eso es porque el 23 de Junio, los Británicos votarán si el Reino Unido permanecerá siendo un miembro de la Unión Europea. Como discutimos anteriórmente aquí, si ellos votan por permanecer, dentro de un año podemos esperar ver ambas la UPC y la patente Unitaria en su lugar.”

Pero también hay otras barreras, la menor de todas es la salida Británica, así como Finlandia (un referéndum allí seríá lelos de una llamada cercana basado en encuéstas) y la larga oposición del fiero pueblo Español.

“Nada enojaría más a Battistelli y sus chácales ver su difunto ‘proyecto’ UPC irse en una trayectoria para abajo.”

Invitamos a los trabajadores de la EPO a unirse a una buena causa y ayudar a la economía de Europa. Pedimos recordar a su gerencia no patentar todo lo que exista bajo el Sol (trampa común cuando se máxmimiza el parámetro malo, como un negociánte en vez de un científico) y si esto signfica rechazar a la UPC, entonces sea así.

Nada enojaría más a Battistelli y sus chácales ver su difunto ‘proyecto’ UPC irse en una trayectoria para abajo. Esto no sólo lo vengaría (por sus muchos abusos) pero también serviría para restaurar a la ‘antigua’ EPO, antes de toda esas mamadas como “Patente de EU” o “Comunidad de Patentes” o “UPC” se asomen por la ventana, con la ayuda y colaboración de grandes aplicantes (incluso no Europeos, simplemente un grupo de billonarios y sus cabilderos buscando a someter al resto del mundo). La UPC tiene muchas similaridades/parecidos con la TPP y la TTIP, como hemos explicado antes.

Summary: The overly extravagant (waste of money) EPO European Inventor Award will have to compete for media attention with thousands of EPO staff (in all EPO sites) marching in the streets to protest against the EPO’s abuses

THE EPO became a big bundle of scandals and it’s the fault of Battistelli along with his notorious ‘circle’, who allegedly subvert democracy and work around (if not run over) the EPC. At this stage, for people who work at the EPO, the imperative question to address is not “why protest?” but “why NOT protest?”

In just a few years, having already existed and thrived for many decades (almost half a century), the Office (EPO) turned into a laughing stock and a stock of unprecedented European scandals. This takes its toll on the institution (or Organisation) as a whole, bringing it to a state of crisis (by its own admission) if not the verge of collapse. What future will there be for EPO patent examiners if totally incompetent fools and rascals like Battistelli remain in charge for another couple of years? The EPO now damages the legitimacy of the European Union as a whole. This is not good.

“In just a few years, having already existed and thrived for many decades (almost half a century), the Office (EPO) turned into a laughing stock and a stock of unprecedented European scandals.”Earlier this month the French officials at Munich observed an EPO protest. Other French officials are well aware of the problem. As someone close to these actions put it (not to us directly, not even indirectly): “The French government has been fully informed of the problems caused by their compatriot Mr Battistelli, amongst others by Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, Mr Philip Cordery, Ms Claudine Lepage and others. But we have not seen much effort (diplomatic or otherwise) of the French government to address the situation. It therefore seems me to [sic] remind the French government of the situation at the EPO. The demonstration has been authorised by the German local authorities.”

Separately, in relation to these recent actions, one person wrote: “Staff should not wait for the cavalry to come in on their own impulse and solve all the EPO Problems, let alone rescue its employees. By the me the outside observer will note the state of decay (quantity, motivation, quality, service, etc…), it will be way too late. Hence it is today all the more urgent for staff to show that the world in the EPO is not as the President describes it, let alone as the Gazette attempts to make it look like. According to the Technologia Survey, reality today is that the situation in the EPO is worse than ever: for those “férus de Benchmarking”, it is reported to be worse than the crisis at France Télécom ever was…”

“The EPO now damages the legitimacy of the European Union as a whole. This is not good.”There are several bogus ‘studies’ in the making right now. We know about these and we know what they were designed (by EPO management) to show. It’s more like think tanks or lobbying, not genuine surveys or research, for reasons we noted here earlier this month. In addition to these so-called ‘studies’ (produced to help influence politicians) there is also that stupid propaganda event which strives to create bogus press coverage from “media partners” of the EPO. SUEPO has scheduled a demonstration to coincide with this propaganda event, but we don’t expect the EPO’s “media partners” to even mention such a demonstration, having witnessed how they deleted entire paragraphs which made the horrible ‘error’ of covering criticism expressed at the event itself. Here are SUEPO’s words, noting the lack of progress from Battistelli (he should get sacked shortly after this event unless he manages to 'buy'/secure his seat in nefarious ways that he's now renowned for). To quote: “No progress has been made on staff’s claims (see e.g. last call for strike “Lawfulness at the EPO”). There is also no sign that Mr Battistelli intends to respect the March resolution of the Administrative Council. On the contrary: new controversial reforms are planned (EPO health insurance, dismissal procedure, post-employment obligations), some already for decision in the next meeting of the Administrative Council on 29-30 June. In order to flag the lack of progress to the Administrative Council, a demonstration at all four places of employment is planned for Thursday 9 June. The demonstration will coincide with the EPO European Inventor Award ceremony in Lisbon.”

This is clever timing. The strike probably ought to have coincided with the Administrative Council’s meeting, but Team Battistelli used what looked (at the time) like delaying tactics. “The demonstration will coincide with the EPO European Inventor Award ceremony in Lisbon,” says the above. It’s going to hurt Team Battistelli where it hurts because the EPO’s PR people are working in the weekend again (both Saturday and Sunday), helping to distract from the scandals [1, 2] using the European Inventor Award. It’s all just ‘damage control’ and this is all they have been doing for about a month now. Can SUEPO crash the propaganda event? If not, how about taking aim at Team Battistelli’s ‘baby’, the UPC?

“The strike probably ought to have coincided with the Administrative Council’s meeting, but Team Battistelli used what looked (at the time) like delaying tactics.”According to this new tweet, Team Battistelli is still in self-fulfilling prophecy mode (trying to pretend that it’s all over and done, even when it’s not) regarding the UPC. To quote: “Its interesting that the guys at the EPO information booth at AIPLA were confident that Brexit would fail–Whistling past the graveyard?”

Remember that the UPC is at stake when it comes to Brexit and it’s anything but a done deal for various other reasons. Even the EPO’s mouthpiece, writing about the bride-like EPO, finally acknowledges that Brexit matters (some British patent lawyers previously tried to deny this). To quote today’s columns from IAM’s editor: “In one month and one day, the UK electorate will be deciding the immediate, and perhaps the permanent, future of the proposed EU unitary patent and Unified Patent Court regime. That’s because on 23rd June, the British will vote on whether they want the UK to remain a member of the European Union. As discussed previously on here, if they do vote to Remain, within a year we can expect to see both the patent and the UPC up and running.”

But there are other barriers, the least of which are Britain’s potential exit, Finland’s potential exit (an EU membership referendum there would be far from a close call, based on polls), and Spain’s longtime opposition.

“Nothing would anger Battistelli and his goons more than seeing the defunct UPC ‘project’ go down in a fiery downward trajectory.”We invite EPO workers to join a good cause and help secure the economy of Europe. We ask them to remind their management not to patent everything under the Sun (common trap when maximising the wrong parameter, like a businessman rather than a scientist) and if this means rejecting the UPC, then so be it.

Nothing would anger Battistelli and his goons more than seeing the defunct UPC ‘project’ go down in a fiery downward trajectory. This would not only avenge (for his many abuses) but it might also help restore the ‘old’ EPO, before all that “EU Patent” or “Community Patent” or “UPC” overhaul got drawn up, with help and collaboration from large applicants (not even European, just a bunch of billionaires with lobbyists all over the world). The UPC has many similarities/parallels with TPP and TTIP, as we explained before. █

Summary: EPO budget at ‘work’, days after doing copy-paste jobs and also working overtime in the weekend for an extravagant and needless/purposeless event (except for Battistelli's own pride)

Summary: Why the latest “Future of Open Source Survey” — much like its predecessors — isn’t really a survey but just another churnalism opportunity for the Microsoft-connected Black Duck, which is a proprietary parasite inside the FOSS community

THE “Future of Open Source Survey” is not a survey. It’s just Black Duck’s self-promotional (marketing) tripe packaged as a “survey”. This is a common PR tactic, it’s not unique. We wrote about this so-called ‘survey’ in several articles in the past, e.g.:

• Latest Microsoft Openwashing, Including ‘Future Of Open Source’ Survey From Proprietary Software Company With Microsoft Ties
• False Spokespeople for Free Software
• Microsoft in the Future of Open Source Forum
• Microsoft Proxies Controlling the Open Source Message
• Grooming Microsoft as the Voice of Free/Open Source Software
• The Foot in Stallman’s Face: Bill Gates Still Redefines Free Software
• Microsoft Tired of Pretending to be Nice to Free/Open Source Software (FOSS), Microsoft ‘Open’ Technologies Dumped

We now have more of the same churnalism and it comes from the usual ‘news’ networks, in addition to paid press releases. When we first mentioned Shipley 8 years ago he was busy doing one nefarious thing and two years ago we saw him joining the Microsoft-connected Black Duck. He is quoted as saying (CBS) that “the rapid adoption of open source has outpaced the implementation of effective open-source management and security practices. We see opportunities to make significant improvements in those areas. With nearly half of respondents saying they have no formal processes to track their open source, and half reporting that no one has responsibility for identifying known vulnerabilities and tracking remediation, we expect to see more focus on those areas.” Thanks for the FUD, Mr. Shipley. So where do I buy your proprietary software (and software patents-protected) ‘solution’? That is, after all, what it’s all about, isn’t it? The ‘survey’ is an excuse or a carrier (if not Trojan horse) for proprietary software marketing.

Here is similar coverage from IDG and the Linux Foundation, whose writers did little more than repeat the talking points of Black Duck after the press release got spread around. █

THE staff of the EPO is extremely upset at the management, based on an extensive recent survey. It’s hardly surprising that the staff wishes to go on strike.

Does the EPO inform the world about the imminent strike or does it simply pretend that it’s “business as usual”? Well, considering the fact the the EPO lies to journalists and to staff, don’t expect any honesty or transparency. It’s quite an irresponsible choice actually, as it will erode confidence among those who pay the EPO.

“It’s quite an irresponsible choice actually, as it will erode confidence among those who pay the EPO.”There’s virtually nothing from the EPO in Twitter (on Monday/this week) except some brag about the number of followers (which many people are just buying these days, in order to give a false impression of popularity). This kind of inactivity is rather unusual (only one non-substantial tweet today). There is no word at all about this week’s strike, not even in the EPO’s news section, blog/s, etc. This is what the homepage of the EPO looks like right now:

We can’t help but wonder if this year too there will be fake journalism at the event, with EPO-imposed self-censorship that lasts for a long time.

“How many people are scheduled (maybe with flight tickets) to come to the Office that day?”It’s surely embarrassing to tell one’s clients that thousands of one’s staff (majority of them) voted in favour of a strike because of human rights violations by the management. It’s even worse when they’re told that over 90% of that staff voted for a strike. This would deepen the crisis, but then again, a surprise strike or unannounced interference to normal operation/service would harm the clients too. Quite a dilemma. How many people are scheduled (maybe with flight tickets) to come to the Office that day? What about hearing and appeals? How many people are to make phonecalls and send queries? Shouldn’t they be told about what’s coming just 2 days from now? How long can EPO management suppress the inevitable?

To quote WIPR‘s good new outline: “The strike is scheduled for April 7 and will take place at the EPO’s offices in Munich, The Hague, Berlin and Vienna. In a vote, 91% (3,701) of those who voted on the proposed strike backed industrial action. In order to strike, at least 40% of staff are required to vote on whether to take action. In total, 4,062 out of the EPO’s 6,738 total staff members voted, representing 60%. Once this has been achieved, at least 50% of those must vote in favour of action. Of the 4,062 voters, just 219 voted against strike action, while 142 members of staff said they had no opinion on the issue.”

“It happened before… that they promised a response to scandals but never actually yielded any.”The writer then added: “The EPO is preparing a statement and we will update the story shortly.” By the end of the day there was no update from the PR team of the EPO (it’s well after 1 AM here).

It happened before… that they promised a response to scandals but never actually yielded any. They chose silence because it was probably seen as a better option (“no comment” basically). They did this after WIPR had written about their lawsuit threats.

At 8 o’clock on Monday (night) Kieren McCarthy wrote about this as well and there’s nothing there from EPO PR. Did they seriously think the media/press wouldn’t notice and report this? McCarthy correctly notes: “If SUEPO signs the agreement [MuO] as currently written, it would effectively sign up to the very rules that it is protesting and which led to EPO’s management aggressively targeting the union leaders when they opposed the changes.”

Where’s FTI Consulting at this time of crisis?

When we last wrote about the strike (more background therein about the strike) it was further reinforced that this strike would affect all sites on Thursday. SUEPO has just published this document [PDF] which we quoted here a while ago. It’s about lawlessness at the EPO. That’s what the strike is primarily about.

A week ago we mentioned Hans-Joachim Frieling’s letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung (now increasingly famous for the Panama leaks), which has just been translated as follows [PDF]. It’s about lawlessness and here is the English translation with our highlights added:

28 March 2016, 18:59

European Patent Office: Woeful lack of law

“A public authority on the brink of the abyss”, of 3 March:

“European Patent Office” (EPO) is a “super authority” – at least according to the head office – which is established on the soil of Munich. But the power games being played out at the EPO go way beyond local considerations, beyond the intrigue aroused by an obviously power-obsessed boss, and well beyond the interests vested in Munich, Bavaria, and even Germany; they are of major (European-level) importance politically, and of major significance with regard to constitutional law. The cause and core of the scandalous spectacle being enacted on the bank of the River Isar appear to lie in the “immunity” which the EPO was granted in its foundation charter by the states which support it, as an authority which is most specifically not EU. Or the way in which EPO President Benoît Battistelli interprets and applies this “immunity” unimpeded by his Administrative Council, on which the Federal Minister of Justice actually sits; the clear establishment of total autonomy, exempt not only from all straightforward rules of law of the host and location country (such as the law relating to protection against dismissal, law relating to labour tribunals, and many more besides), but even exemption from all protection of basic rights, such as are enshrined in the Bavarian Constitution, the Basic Law (GG) of the Federal Republic of Germany, and in the European treaties and statutes.

It is bad enough that, in the heart of Bavaria, so proud of its constitution, as described by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a situation could come about in which the presidential will alone prevails, a wilful domination which commits aggressive abuses against, among others, Article 9 Para. 3 GG (Freedom of Formation and Action of Staff Unions); but it is utterly intolerable that the decisions by the President, taken against individuals against this spirit of freedom, which in individual cases threaten their very existence, are not subject to any appeal by way of any effective outside or independent means of legal recourse.

Every German politician, when journeying in totalitarian or otherwise suspect countries, is beset on all sides when on their travels by demands to push hard in favour of the Western “export asset of the state governed by law”. But at the same time, amazingly, they turn a blind eye to the fact that on their own soil an institution exists which denies thousands of employees the essential constituents of that notion of the state governed by law, such as the guarantee of legal recourse and the protection of basic rights. What this means is that, leaving aside all the complexities of international law, the status of the EPO becomes a matter of honour for all those whose task it is to promote the notion of the state governed by law to pursue this not only abroad, but right here, on their own territory, and, if necessary, as in this case, to bring it about. This includes, as a priority, the Minister of Justice, by virtue of his office. But every other constitutional patriot should be urged to this as well – and not least in the media. Even if the present issue could be “cleared up” by a potentially expensively purchased (the SZ reports rumours of a golden handshake of 18 million Euro) or forced departure of President Battistelli, the situation cannot be allowed to remain that the Member States allow their EPO to continue to operate outside the constitutional principles of Europe and of the individual states. Dr. Hans-Joachim Frieling, Munich

The above is also available as French [PDF] and as Dutch [PDF] text. The letter does mention rights, but what about privacy rights, which Germany is a lot more conscious of (because of its past) compared to most other nations? We recently found the following commentary which alludes to Süddeutsche Zeitung and goes as follows:

Data protection

The deficiencies in the EPO’s data protection framework have been of concern to the national data protection authorities in Germany. Already in April 2014, the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner, Dr Thomas Petri, informed the Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Andrea Voßhoff, of the outcome of his preliminary investigation which concluded that true oversight of data protection issues was missing at the EPO. Ms Voßhoff brought these concerns to the attention of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and requested assistance in conducting an examination of measures to remedy the deficiencies, including a possible amendment of the EPC. The Ministry of Justice replied to the FDPC stating that Germany was “only one state of 38” on the Administrative Council and that an amendment of the EPC would require a diplomatic conference.

A year later (in June 2015) the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on the use of covert surveillance measures at the EPO. Ms Voßhoff sent another letter to the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice and Consumer Protection of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) to inform the Bundestag. A copy of the letter was sent to the Federal Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, for information. The situation at the EPO was discussed during the 71st Session of the Bundestag Committee for Justice and Consumer Protection which took place on 14 October 2015. The report presented to the Committee by the Ministry of Justice uncritically relied on submissions made by Mr Lutz (VP5), who painted a rather one-sided and overly rosy picture of the state of data protection at the EPO.

There are also other forms of privacy abuses inside the EPO, as we noted in our series about Europatis:

1. Jacques Michel (Former EPO VP1), Benoît Battistelli’s EPO, and the Leak of Internal Staff Data to Michel’s Private Venture
2. Europatis: “Turnover of €211,800 and Zero Employees”
3. Loose Data ‘Protection’ and Likely Privacy Infringements at the EPO: Here’s Who Gets Employees’ Internal Data
4. Summary of the EPO-Europatis Series
5. Revolving Doors of High-Level EPO Management: Jacques Michel and the Questel Deal With the EPO

Over the next few days we shall accelerate our coverage in order to remind EPO staff why going on strike is justified. There will also be more about privacy violations. █

Publicado en Europe, Humor, Marketing, Patentes at 1:57 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: Audi fragua una relación de 5-años de marketing y mutualmete-exclusivo contrato con la Oficina Europea de Patentes, prestando su nombre al altamente credible, respetable cuerpo internacional, donde la calidad es inquestionamblemente excepcional

APR 1 2016 [para immediata publicación bajo embargo hasta la fecha especificada] — MUNICH: Aprovechando el éxito de Volkswagen, FTI Consulting, la empresa de relaciones públicas de la EPO, ha anunciado con bombos y platillos el lanzamiento sin precedentes de una nueva campaña publicitaria de 5 años con el fin de mejorar la imagen ya perfecta y eternamente-inmaculada de la OEP. “Conduce tu Audi Home” es el título de esta emocionante campaña, que tendrá como objetivo las audiencias de televisión en los Países Bajos y Alemania. Con el lema memorable “usted es el jefe de” FTI Consulting espera que los clientes valoran un rápido crecimiento tanto moral y la confianzaa.

“Nuestras relaciones son excelentes.”
      –Alto Oficial de la EPOEsta campaña de marketing es parte de una campaña en curso, que se extenderá a más países a través de Europa en su debido momento, dependiendo de la demanda de medios y de la percepción del mercado de productos finos de la OEP. Se esfuerza por tomar ventaja de la pobre demanda de vehículos de Volkswagen, que a pesar de figuras fantásticas y bajas emisiones (según lo confirmado por la Revista Internacional del Automóvil, IAM) no ha logrado establecer un lugar para sí en cualquier lugar fuera de Alemania.

En una declaración preparada, dijo un no-nombrado oficial de la EPO, ¨la nueva campaña llena un vacío y mejorará la imagen de la EPO.¨Comentando en el meollo del lema, el oficial explicó: ¨Nunca ha habido mejor tiempo para comprar un Audi. Nuestras relaciones son excelentes. Nuestra productividad esta más arriba que cualquier momento. Puedes manejar tu Audi como un jefe a cualquier lugar de Europa, tan lejos como Francia al Oeste y Croacia al Este.¨ █

Summary: Audi forges a 5-year marketing relationship and mutually-exclusive contract with the European Patent Office, lending its name to the highly credible international body, where quality is unsayably exceptional

APR 1 2016 [for immediate release under embargo until the stated date] — MUNICH: Capitalising on the success of Volkswagen, FTI Consulting, the PR firm of the EPO, has proudly announced the unprecedented launch of a new 5-year advertising campaign in order to improve the already-perfect and eternally-immaculate image of the EPO. “Drive your Audi Home” is the title of this exciting campaign, which will target TV audiences in the Netherlands and Germany. With the memorable motto “you’re the boss” FTI Consulting expects customers to value rapid growth in both morale and confidence.

“Our relationships are excellent.”
      –EPO officialThis marketing push is part of an ongoing campaign, which may extend to more countries across Europe in due course, depending on media demand and dependent on the market perception of the EPO’s fine products. It strives to take advantage of the poor demand for Volkswagen vehicles, which despite fantastic figures and low emissions (as confirmed by the International Automobile Magazine, IAM) has not managed to gain a foothold anywhere outside of Germany.

In a prepared statement, said an unnamed EPO official, “the new campaign fills a void and will further enhance the image of the EPO.” Commenting on the substance of the the motto, the official explained: “There has never been a better time to buy an Audi. Our relationships are excellent. Our performance is at an all-time high. You can drive your Audi like a boss to any place in Europe, as far as France to the West and Croatia to the East.” █

Postscript: this is satire, in case it’s not obvious.

Summary: The European Patent Office, which is in a state of crisis, latches onto anything conceivably useful (even terror attacks) in an effort to somehow repair its image

THE EPO is in a state of crisis. The Board explicitly says so and a new staff survey makes this abundantly clear. The EPO’s management now exploits another crisis in order to distract/divert away from its own. To twist the words from the article above, EPO staff ought to vomit on all these Battistellites who suddenly say they are their friends.

Milking Islamic Terrorism

“To twist the words from the article above, EPO staff ought to vomit on all these Battistellites who suddenly say they are their friends.”Based on this month’s BR TV program (which drives the EPO's management up the wall), the EPO’s notorious Stasi-esque unit [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] leads to deaths, but nevertheless, Benoît Battistelli, like a classic Republican politician — not a professional and charismatic manager — is quick to take advantage of disasters. Battistelli already paints himself as fighting Nazis and criminals, not people who speak truth or work within a staff union (perfectly legitimate and commendable activity).

Benoît Battistelli is exploiting deaths again (warning: this is a link to epo.org, so consider using the Twitter link instead, even as a referrer/middleman). We surely saw that coming. This seems like a Battistelli tradition as he also did this after the terror attacked in Paris. Watch who signs these messages. This is Battistelli’s own mastermind. He blurs the gaps between politics and (what was supposed to be) a public service.

“Battistelli already paints himself as fighting Nazis and criminals, not people who speak truth or work within a staff union (perfectly legitimate and commendable activity).”Fear not Battistelli, ladies and gentleman, he’s there to protect you from terrorists (with his unnecessary luxury which is several bodyguards). Or something like that…

Calling Whistleblowers Nazis

If there is militant/militaristic atmosphere at the EPO, it’s because Battistelli and his clique hire people from the Army, even the Belgian Army. They are then attacking critics of the Battistellites (Željko Topić for instance), calling them “Nazis” and all sorts of other smears. Someone in IP Kat was asking yesterday about the judge whom Battistelli had been illegally/indefinitely suspending (keeping on 'house ban' for well over a year) and then personally attacking (character assassination) for allegedly saying the truth about Željko Topić. To quote: “Has anyone heard of the disciplinary procedure against the suspended DG3 member?

“I’ve not seen any decision of the AdminCouncil how to continue, or to stop the disciplinary procedure.

“If the AdminCouncil wants the President’s decisions to be perceived as fair, how about the disciplinary procedure falling under their authority?”

“Watch this disturbing reversal of victimhood. Compare that to the WIPO scandal (whistleblowers also).”As a little/short recap, the Administrative Council was stupid enough to accept Battistelli’s request to demand from the Board of Appeals that their judge gets dismissed (after all the character assassination against this judge), whereupon the Administrative Council got denied. What a huge embarrassment that was — and what that surely sheds negative light on Mr. Kongstad. Later on the Administrative Council learned its lesson and no longer even made such a request to the Board of Appeals. There was a rift between the Administrative Council and the Battistellites, at long last.

At that stage, we suppose, the Administrative Council (and Kongstad personally) realised that they were just being the Battistellites’ pawns and the judge is likely innocent (recent reports suggest he’s now represented by the same lawyer as SUEPO’s). Maybe it’s Željko Topić, part of Team Battistelli, whom they should be investigating/pressuring, not the judge who allegedly spoke about Topić (allegedly to the Administrative Council too).

Watch this disturbing reversal of victimhood. Compare that to the WIPO scandal (whistleblowers also).

Spreading More Lies

The EPO just can’t help it. Lies, lies, and more lies come out of the EPO’s Twitter account, e.g. this one (among many more), ignoring a lot of criticisms which we wrote about before [1, 2, 3]. Considering the aforementioned crisis, imagine what will happen in a year or two when pending patents will be too scarce to demonstrate any growth at all (no matter how one cooks the books). Will EPO patents be worth much at all at that stage? Quality is said to have significantly stagnated/declined, which isn’t surprising (overstressed examiners would be unable to properly research the input and give constructive output).

Another Wasteful Propaganda Event

Silly, cheesy, wasteful (at the expense of public resources) self-glorification events are nothing new under the Battistelli regime. The EPO is already preparing another misleading event, just like the one it had last year, covered by EPO-sponsored self-censoring "media partners".

“The EPO is already preparing another misleading event, just like the one it had last year, covered by EPO-sponsored self-censoring “media partners”.”We don’t know who will be the inventor of the year, but it’s possible that in 2016 EPO will be the scandal of the year (in Europe or internationally), following the footsteps of past victors such as BP or Volkswagen.

Lithuanian Spin

Several days ago we wrote about the bizarre deal with Lithuania (especially bizarre given the timing). We have found only one puff piece that paid any attention to it. It came from WIPR, but we cannot help wondering if it really came after some prodding/pressure from the EPO’s PR team. There is a lot of PR money in circulation right now. █

Summary: More of the patently ridiculous claims that Microsoft combats state-sponsored attacks are being further disseminated by corporate media

The newest PR strategy of some Internet-centric companies, fitting the privacywashing pattern^*, is something along the lines of “will inform users of/about state-sponsored attacks” (Twitter, for instance, made a lot of positive coverage for itself this way). Microsoft inevitably joins in, probably in an effort to garner some positive coverage for itself, however ridiculously and opportunistically.

The LA Times, which based on recent revelations occasionally authors its articles with help from the CIA (i.e. helping to promote the agenda of Deep State, like those who used US-sponsored attacks and Brennan-supported efforts to crack the PCs of US Senate members who had probed CIA torture), has just pushed out there to the broad public Microsoft’s propaganda, based on Microsoft’s lobbying blog (that’s what this blog really is). How pathetic is that? It’s not journalism, it’s lobbying amplified. To quote the LA Times, “Microsoft pledged on Wednesday to notify people with Microsoft accounts (which include Outlook.com emails and OneDrive) if it believes those accounts have been targeted or hacked by people working on behalf of a nation or state.”

“It’s not journalism, it’s lobbying amplified.”To quote Microsoft’s lobbyists: “We already notify users if we believe their accounts have been targeted or compromised by a third party, and we provide guidance on measures users can take to keep their accounts secure. We’re taking this additional step of specifically letting you know if we have evidence that the attacker may be “state-sponsored” because it is likely that the attack could be more sophisticated or more sustained than attacks from cybercriminals and others. These notifications do not mean that Microsoft’s own systems have in any way been compromised.”

Well, “the question is,” XFaCE wrote in the #techrights IRC channel, “why there are successful state-sponsored attack in the first place?” He was perhaps referring to back doors, which Microsoft deliberately creates for so-called ‘law enforcement’, with ‘terror’ as a convenient pretext.

As XFaCE put it, sarcastically, “don’t worry, trust Microsoft.”

“The same goes for those who cover Microsoft’s publicity stunt in Ireland (show trial) and so-called ‘secure’ facilities in Germany.”Microsoft helps state-sponsored attacks by Putin et al (attacks on Russian dissidents) and even by the US government (attacks against the entire world). Even NSA attacks against US citizens and perhaps many others, including members of Congress (who according to the latest developments came under surveillance for purely political purposes). Will Microsoft tell people about state-sponsored attacks that Microsoft itself is aiding?

Microsoft’s lobbyists are being laughable here. Those who help these lobbyists get out their message are not journalists or even stenographers. They’re what Stalin would have called “useful idiots”. The same goes for those who cover Microsoft’s publicity stunt in Ireland (show trial) and so-called ‘secure’ facilities in Germany.

There is a reason why the FBI’s Director has been silent about Microsoft’s ‘encryption’; there are back doors already (don’t forget CIPAV for instance). They have been there for a long time. As Micah Lee put it some days ago, “Recently Bought a Windows Computer? Microsoft Probably Has Your Encryption Key” (we covered this a long time ago). Microsoft Peter has already responded to this with an utterly ridiculous article (widely ridiculed on the Web and in forums). Microsoft cares about privacy and security like BP cares about the environment or like Microsoft “loves Linux” (baloney). █
__________
^* When companies that are among the worst privacy offenders try to paint themselves “privacy champions”, much like oil/coal companies try to undergo "greenwashing" treatment, whereby they’re viewed as friends of the Earth.

ONE aspect of the EPO which we never explored in depth is the so-called ‘communications’ department (a more recent euphemism for propaganda). Don’t forget the circumstances under which Vincent Bénard left (there were other such stories — some even more shocking — at that time).

Based on our reliable sources, who had experience with the EPO’s media- or trend-setting team, the PR team of the Office has the “sweet talkers”. These are the people who will pretend to be your friends or “buddies”, as journalists who were subjected to similar treatment from Microsoft PR agencies called it. This is what some of these people are professionally trained to do. Moreover, we managed to learn that they also have the people who are actually pressuring (even over the phone) not to publish certain things. Well, pressuring publications is not PR, it’s almost a form of bullying. We learned that editors and publishers are given marching orders for writers (commissioning work). If there was a propaganda minister at Munich, who would it be?

“Moreover, we managed to learn that they also have the people who are actually pressuring (even over the phone) not to publish certain things.”We learned that the EPO’s PR team has, at times, attempted to change existing (to be published) stories by asking publishers to make them balanced rather than “biased”, meaning not favourable to the EPO’s image. Rainer (“Press spokesperson” is his job title) is allegedly doing a lot of the communications, sometimes Jeremy also (watch how he and IAM ‘magazine’ worked hand in glove, so to speak). We can’t help but wonder what made the BBC spike a negative story about the EPO. Jana Mittermaier is not directly involved all that much, at least not with media organisations. She had studied in the UK, where Jeremy also came from.

Remember that the EPO is an international body, not a European body, so wasting money on improving its image isn’t even designed/intended to serve European interests. The “E” in EPO is very misleading. Recall the greenwashing PR campaign (expensive EPO-commissioned ‘study’), coinciding with climate talks in Paris. This one example and other patterns of PR as of late serve to show just how desperate the EPO is for positive messages (it’s willing to pay to ‘manufacture’ these).

“The EPO is quite a greased-up propaganda machine.”One other thing we learned is that — much as we predicted all along — it is now confirmed that the EPO’s PR team sends (in mass or bulk) press releases to a lot of sites, attempting to seed their so-called ‘story’ du jour (sometimes commissioned ‘study’). This method is rather effective at getting one's message out there if one is not shy to stoop down to this level. A lot of PR people lost this sense of shame as do this habitually (“everyone’s doing it!”), sending lots of junk even to complete strangers whom they never ever spoke to.

Perhaps the most shocking thing that we learned is that the editors in some publications put pressure on their writers to write articles or something similar (more like “announcements”) based on press releases sent by the EPO. This is based on what we learned privately. It’s not just hearsay.

The EPO is quite a greased-up propaganda machine. Techrights is up against something that calls itself “patent office” but has a massive PR operation (and fancy events for so-called ‘inventors’ of the year); it’s something which calls itself “European” but is run by and for globalists. A lot of the PR too (operating at a budget of nearly $100,000 per month!) has been outsourced to the United States. █

Summary: A look at highly expensive lobbying for personal gain by Bill Gates in just one area (among many) and how this relates to EPO lobbying for the UPC, which basically helps make the rich even richer

BASED on the EPO’s spendings of nearly a million dollars for a US company to promote the Unitary Patent in the US, there is definitely something going on and we cannot help thinking of Gates’ promotion of Common Core, which he profits from (we no longer cover this, having written hundreds of articles on the subject). It’s all about Big Business, which is already treated more favourably than others at the EPO.

A few days ago we found this promotional EPO article that says: “Reflecting in statistics, the European Union is the second-largest overseas filer with the SIPO, accounting for 28% of foreign filings in 2014. In the same year, Chinese filers contributed more than 9% filed with EPO, mainly clustering around the sectors of digital communication, computer technology and telecommunications.”

“It’s all about Big Business, which is already treated more favourably than others at the EPO.”Well, actually, many of the filers are big businesses from China (some are government-connected and enjoy a fast lane at the EPO). Battistelli has been visiting China and posing a lot with Chinese officials recently, not because they have so much in common in terms of human rights but because Battistelli serves globalists, not Europeans. He serves the world’s billionaires, people like Bill Gates.

Incidentally, last night as we reorganised some old feeds we found alarming headlines from the past 2 years. In them, Bill Gates’ push of Common Core came under fire. Like the Unitary Patent in Europe, there’s a big PR campaign behind it. See articles (written by teachers) such as “An Audit of Bill Gates’ Common Core Spending” or “Bill Gates: An infographic”.

“It’s an information war.”Having essentially bribed the Seattle Times for favourable coverage before [1, 2] (like Adelson does right now in Las Vegas, despite getting caught), Bill Gates is doing it again. To quote some headlines, “Bill Gates funded the Seattle Times “Education Lab””, “Bill Gates funds the media then secretly meets with them” and “Bill Gates funds the media, including the Seattle Times’ Education Lab, then secretly meets with them”. He gives them marching orders like he did in the New York Times with his occasional visits. Gates also pays notable British press like the BBC and The Guardian in exchange for favourable coverage. It’s an information war. He is buying out the media and the front groups, making them incapable of resisting and rendering them just puppets catering for his agenda, masquerading as lots of interest groups of various different stakeholders. Here are some headlines from the aforementioned teachers’ blog:

• Protest the Gates Foundation’s takeover of public schools
• #EducatingGatesRally June 26th
• The Bunkum Awards in Education go to Rhee, Gates, ALEC and more of your edu faves
• Bill Gates bankrolls College and Career Ready programs, aka the Common Core Standards
• So much for Gates funded STEM : Census Bureau Reports Majority of STEM College Graduates Do Not Work in STEM Occupations
• Hold the presses! The Gates Foundation Wants You To Boycott High-Stakes Tests
• Summit High School: The skinny on the Gates-backed charter school set for Seattle, Brad Bernatek (remember him?) and a host of others
• Bill Gates tells us why *his* high school was a great learning environment
• Bill Gates in Washington State: Mayoral Control and Charter Schools
• Bill Gates has spent $305M to push charter schools: Here is the list of recipients
• The Gates owned Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) right here in Seattle
• Bill Gates rewrites history for Seattle students: Testimony on the Ida B. Wells School for Social Justice
• Hillsborough schools to shelve Gates-funded experiment that cost $100M+ to implement

A lot of the above reminds us of Battistelli and his precious Unitary Patents. He has an agenda to sell and obscene amounts of money are now being (mis)used for an unacceptable PR campaign. Who benefits? Certainly not the public.

Don’t believe anything that EPO management says, including whatever it may say about the Unitary Patent. Sadly, the EPO is now poisoning also the media and it sets up events that serve as Unitary Patent propaganda. █

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s EPO has paid a lot of money to FTI Consulting, which is in turn paying an untold amount of money to IAM in order to help create a pro-UPC forum, stuffed with biased (for their pockets) attendants, keynotes, etc.

IAM’s MANY writings about patents have been followed by yours truly for over half a decade. I’m no stranger to their ‘work’. As noted here before, IAM glorifies patent stockpiling (irrespective of the consequences), it promotes software patents everywhere, and it puts at risk people who are critical of the EPO. It recently blocked anyone who dared to expose IAM’s pro-EPO agenda as if they try to prevent communication and perhaps even have a lot to hide (they already admitted receiving money from the EPO).

“As noted here before, IAM glorifies patent stockpiling (irrespective of the consequences), it promotes software patents everywhere, and it puts at risk people who are critical of the EPO.”The UPC isn’t bad for everyone. It gives money to patent lawyers (who along with large corporations that employ them stand to benefit from more lawsuits, injunctions, etc.), but what about the rest of European society?

Last night we spotted what looks like some kind of a new EPO campaign hosted and run by its (paid by their own admission) ‘buddies’ from IAM. Remember that FTI Consulting was paid €880,000 a few months ago.

The event site is quite revealing. The agenda is made clear right at the front page. Regarding the UPC, for example, before it’s even approved they dub it “Europe’s New Patent Market” and then they use positive language like “Winning Strategies for the UPC Regime” (winning in the litigation sense?).

Who’s winning? Patent lawyers? Europe certainly would not win, and Battistelli is trying very hard to silence high-level EPO staff that antagonises the UPC, even after leaving the EPO.

The EPO’s FTI Consulting AstroTurfing campaign is becoming quite a disaster. Once made visible and known to more people, everything the EPO does looks like manipulation of media. What on Earth was Battistelli thinking? The implications of this are severe and even French politicians are complaining about it (we still need a translation from French, both of the letter and of this new article).

It is starting to look more plausible (or probable) that IAM blocked many people because it had become the girlfriend of Battistelli and the EPO. Trying to defend such a relationship isn’t easy. FTI Consulting is essentially an EPO purse right now, serving as somewhat of a proxy, almost like a money-laundering operation (budget for one year: nearly $1 million). Just watch what FTI Consulting apparently did for fracking clients.

“Just watch what FTI Consulting apparently did for fracking clients.”We have researched this a little further and found that, based on tweets such as this, the site’s section has been around for at least a week (maybe a lot longer).

whois.net lookup shows “Creation Date: 11-sep-2014″ and does not reveal who registered it. We previously saw how lobbying groups or front groups of Microsoft hid their lobbying domains quite cleverly but then exposed that. Looking a little deeper (identity is partly concealed) we find who set up the domain:

Admin Name: Christopher Proud
Admin Organization: Globe Business Publishing
Admin Street: New Hibernia House
Admin Street: Winchester Walk
Admin City: London
Admin State/Province: London
Admin Postal Code: SE1 9AG
Admin Country: GB
Admin Phone: +44.2072340606
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +44.2072340606

There was also an event for patent trolls organised just months after this site’s setup. Is this a way to start a venture? Collecting money from trolls to promote trolls or at least improve their image? Others do so too and when challenged online they failed to defend it.

“Shameless lobbying with the veneer of an ‘independent’ ‘news’ site. Clever stunt from FTI Consulting?”See the “NPE 2015″ pages. Among the sponsors (which paid IAM) were infamous anti-Linux, Microsoft-connected trolls such as MOSAID (renamed since) and Acacia, both as “Gold” sponsors. They’re joined by other trolls, famous lawyers of trolls, and Microsoft-connected aggressors like Finjan. There’s no FTI Consulting in sight, so the EPO connection (not the IAM connection) seems likely to have put them in the UPC event. Among other sponsors we only see the world’s most vocal proponents of software patents, which serves to reinforce our perception of the principal forces behind UPC.

Isn’t that wonderful? Shameless lobbying with the veneer of an ‘independent’ ‘news’ site. Clever stunt from FTI Consulting? Or will it simply backfire? █

Summary: A roundup of this week’s news (with focus on late week in particular), serving to show what the EPO’s management is really up against when it comes to shifting public opinion

Benoît Battistelli’s EPO has paid truly outrageous amounts of money to seed the press with positive publicity. It’s more or less clear why Battistelli wants and needs that. The EPO has become a byword for gross institutional abuse not just in Europe but internationally. Battistelli paid nearly a million dollars for an international firm (based in Washington) to whitewash the EPO in a period of one year. That’s almost $100,000 a month in out-of-the-ordinary (additional) PR budget. Good use of budget? What next, private limousines for Battistelli? There are rumours that he wants these too, having gotten tired of just private bodyguards.

Battistelli’s focus (as of late) on PR has been rather gross or crude. The greenwashing aside (it’s now a fortnight old), there is the “compliance” spin right now. Here is a new puff piece derived from this EPO spin, as covered here the other day. What is this, “media presence” again?

“The EPO has become a byword for gross institutional abuse not just in Europe but internationally.”Let’s look at some real news, not regurgitation of official press releases (seeded in epo.org and probably sent en masse to thousands of lazy journalists all across Europe). After the press release about the Unitary Patent (which the EPO openly lobbies for) we even found this article whose headline can be translated into “Unitary patent system in the EU on the spot” (according to EPO). Is this the desired outcome of the PR campaign? Either way, it only tells part of the story and is an effort at self-fulfilling prophecies.

Days ago in PTAB Watch we spotted this article which said: “With respect to the European patent, despite the acknowledgement by the PTAB that laws and rules are different in Europe, and a previous PTAB decision (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLC, Case IPR2014-01557, slip op. at 15 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2015) (Paper 13)) that held that whatever happened in the European Patent Office (“EPO”) is essentially irrelevant, the Board determined that the European prosecution history evidence was probative of whether a cited reference is analogous art to the patent under review, and admitted the evidence for this limited purpose. The Board also determined that the post-dated publications submitted in District Court litigation that discussed terms and features recited in the claims were relevant to show how the Patent Owner had been interpreting its claims during proceedings to enforce the patent.”

“The thing about the EPO is, it’s going nowhere fast and heading into irrelevancy.”The significance of this in light the recent events and the context (see full article for details) is that there’s not much respect for the EPO’s judgment. As the article put it, “whatever happened in the European Patent Office (“EPO”) is essentially irrelevant” (irrelevancy or irrelevance imply there is no perceived superiority over the decisions or judgments in the US).

The thing about the EPO is, it’s going nowhere fast and heading into irrelevancy. Battistelli has accelerated this by orders of magnitude because the dysfunction increased in many areas (or aspects) and new areas of dispute emerged; it used to be mostly about patent scope. Not many people would bother pursuing patents at the EPO unless it maintains a high enough quality to justify the high cost. The EPO charges a lot of money (application and renewal fees from applicants) for several examiners to examine together/simultaneously, but the Office still rushes the process (speed over accuracy). No wonder EPO patents such as those granted to Apple are later -- once scrutinised by a court -- get invalidated. It serves to show that Battiselli’s approach shames the Office and harms its reputation.

“19 years to be granted a patent!”Eversheds International, an international legal practice, mentioned the EPO a couple of times yesterday [1, 2], reminding us of Baxter's notorious patent application at the EPO.

Eversheds wrote: “The patent was only granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) on 27 November 2013, despite having been filed on 9 July 1994, with a priority date of 19 July 1993. The extraordinarily long examination stage (19 years), meant that the period of effective patent protection was less than 1 year. Had a SPC been granted, its duration would have been approximately 3.5 years, a highly desirable extension to the term of patent protection.”

Got that?

“In Twitter too we were told by lawyers about patents which took two decades to process, so the above is not an isolated incident.”19 years to be granted a patent! Some people complain about applications taking ten years. In Twitter too we were told by lawyers about patents which took two decades to process, so the above is not an isolated incident. People right here in the UK experience the same thing when they apply at the EPO.

More interesting in the media right now is actually the response of (real) journalists to this statement from the Parliament. The EPO is under attack from the European Parliament because it compromised patent scope/quality for the sake of short-term profit.

One new article says: “A ban on the patenting of products obtained by conventional breeding techniques, such as crossing, is essential to sustain innovation, food security and small businesses, says a non-legislative resolution voted by the European Parliament on 17 December.”

“This is a good example of patent scope gone awry for the sake of profit and protectionism for large corporations such as Monsanto.”EPO is being shamed in this article, which is one among many (some non-English sites have covered this too). EUbusiness wrote about it and noted that “No Patents on Seeds! is an international coalition of civil society organisations. It recently published a report containing an overview of patents granted by the EPO and a legal analysis. The report further highlights the need for more political action.

“The call made by the international coalition No Patents on Seeds! to stop these patents has the support of several hundred organisations all over Europe. The coalition No Patents on Seeds! is supported by Arche Noah (Austria), Bionext (Netherlands), The Berne Declaration (Switzerland), GeneWatch (UK), Greenpeace, Misereor (Germany), Development Fund (Norway), NOAH (Denmark), No Patents on Life (Germany), ProSpecieRara (Switzerland), Red de Semillas (Spain), Rete Semi Rurali (Italy), Reseau Semences Paysannes (France) and Swissaid (Switzerland). They are all calling for a revision of European Patent Law to exclude breeding material, breeding processes, plants and animals, their characteristics, their genetic components, the harvest and food derived thereof from patentability.”

“The latter involves Gillette, so we cannot help recalling the intervention of Željko Topić regarding razor blades in Croatia.”This is a good example of patent scope gone awry for the sake of profit and protectionism for large corporations such as Monsanto. Some companies are now spreading press releases about EPO patents on drugs and there are articles about US patents as they’re being used for protectionism and monopoly (to protect a notorious business model). The latter involves Gillette, so we cannot help recalling the intervention of Željko Topić regarding razor blades in Croatia. █

Summary: The management of the European Private [sic] Office (EPO) continues to congratulate itself every other day, almost as though nothing has gone amiss and the EPO is an heroic leader of green energy, humanitarian unity, and compliance

Yesterday (late at night in particular), due to a quickly-growing backlog we published about half a dozen articles about the EPO. Watch Battistelli milking ISO 9001 (warning: epo.org link), taking advantage of something which we covered in this old article and of ISO, another rubber-stamping organisation. After greenwashing and additional UPC glamourisation it’s apparently time to spread the false perception of EPO being in compliance (e.g. with the law). Clever spin.

It’s no secret that the Office is now lobbying (and wants a monopoly on this kind of lobbying, as we showed last night) for the UPC. Words like “Community”, “Unitary”, “European” and so on are supposed to make occupation of Europe by large (and usually foreign) corporations sound not just benign but also desirable. Watch Éanna Kelly from Science|Business acting as some kind of megaphone or courier for Battistelli in this new article that’s looking more like a press release. Is this part of the expensive PR campaign? As one person put it earlier today in IP Kat comments, “880k euros well spent?” (alluding to this leak of the FTI Consulting contract)

Here is the article in which this comment can be found. Among the comments we also see mentioned “AIPPI and Epi finally woke up from their long sleep. Better, because more courageous and complete, is the letter of AIPPI. Now BB [Battistelli] will get slaps from all directions on all issues: wrong on DG3, unrespectful of rules of law, disregard for due process, harassment of employees etc. He will have to get out of here with his team, and quick. At last…!”

The article is relatively short and in it Merpel wrote about letters which we already covered (before IP Kat) and added: “It’s anyone’s guess where this will go next. Merpel’s guess, based on another rumour she has heard, is that the AC will take the reform of the Boards entirely out of the hands of Mr Battistelli, and will develop its own proposals, perhaps through a sub-committee or within Board 28 (its internal management committee).”

In IP Kat comments, more so than in any other site, we suspect that the EPO (or some kind of PR proxy or EPO apologists) use distraction as an art form. In Merpel’s article there happens to be a link to this AMBA letter. Here is the full text of the letter:

Re: Orientation Paper on the Structural Reform of the BoA

AMBA has seen the Presidium’s letter to the AC in response to CA/98/15 (see Annex 1) and fully endorses it. We would like, however, to make some further comments.

1. The short timeframe foreseen in CA/16/15 was used to justify provisional measures, notably a freeze on recruitment. After nine months, CA/98/15 represents a rather small change with respect to CA/16/15. In this time, however, the staffing situation in the Boards has become critical, approaching 20% of posts are vacant, despite considerable user protests about backlogs and timeliness. Boards in some technical areas have insufficient members to handle cases.

2. AMBA has put forward concrete written proposals to the Task Force. We, however, have never seen a single document or proposal before the publication of CA/98/15. Moreover, the document manifestly takes no account of our submissions, despite assurances that they would be reflected in any proposal. The paper also takes no account of the comments of the AC members in the Council meeting of March 2015, or of the user survey results; rather, it misrepresents them (see Annex 2).

3. The paper states that the Office has asked an independent expert about the legality of the delegation of presidential powers and functions [11]. We understand that this advice was first sought after the problems of CA/16/15 were highlighted. If there is no answer after nine months of study, it must be doubtful whether the delegation can possibly have the desired effect of clearly separating the judicial function from the executive. But, if delegation turns out not to be legal or not clearly to increase independence, the whole proposal is without foundation. It is premature to consider further measures, especially ones that the Council, board members, and users have identified as entirely secondary or misconceived, before resolving this crucial issue.

4. In our view, all the changes introduced in CA/98/15 are detrimental to both actual and perceived independence and do not solve the problem highlighted in decision R 19/12. The proposal now places considerably more power in the hands of the President of the Office: proposing the President of the BoA [9] and the Rules of Procedure [17], and involvement in setting up the BoAC [18]. The BoAC now has more influence from the AC and still no voting representative of the BoA [19] despite the fact that AMBA, the Presidium, some delegations, and virtually all the responses to the user consultation have raised doubts as to whether a body of the AC should be involved in the running of the BoA. Contrary to what is stated [13], the BoAC is in no way limited to general advisory and consultative roles. There is no explanation of, and no mechanism for, assuring the Boards’ autonomy under the BoAC or the new President of the BoA. The removal of control from the Boards of the Rules of Procedure and conditions for re-appointment must reduce autonomy. Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal / European Patent Office

5. AMBA and the Presidium jointly presented an alternative proposal (see Annex 3), involving a Senate for the Boards of Appeal, based on the existing Presidium, but in an extended composition that balances the independence of the BoA with the understandable wish of the AC to be more informed, and more involved about the functioning of the BoA (accountability). It is a proposal that requires minimal changes to the existing structure and which does not rely on delegation of presidential powers, but which is compatible with a BoAC as a sub-committee of the Council.

6. The setting of Rules of Procedure in national jurisdictions is a complicated matter that must be understood in their proper contexts. CA/98/15 glosses over this [15] and does not present the Council with sufficient information to make an informed judgement. It may be noted, however, that the CJEU and the ECHR decide their own Rules of Procedure. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure for the UPC are proposed by its Presidium (Art. 15(3)(a)).

7. The proposal puts the Boards back in the Office’s “technical” career path (as defined in Art. 47 ServRegs) [24]. The Council recognised this as inappropriate for the Boards, which is why a transitional system was adopted. Not mentioned is the Boards’ paper regarding a career system. The main points were that the principles of judicial independence and security of tenure require that re-appointment should not be based on performance and that all board members (or chairmen) do the same job so that proficiency levels and promotion within a job level make no sense and would give a strange impression to the parties. The paper also proposed various scenarios to address these problems, by having grade advancement at re-appointment.

8. No delegate or user group has indicated any conflict of interest if an ex Board member works as a patent agent. If there were such a conflict, it would, a fortiori, not be possible for practising patent attorneys to sit as judges in the UPC.

9. Since a move outside Munich appears to be against the EPC, it provides an additional argument for those challenging the legality of the whole system. Moreover, again no delegate or user group sees a need to move out of Munich and most see no need to move at all. The alternatives presented in the paper are all associated with major disruptions and/or increased costs. We think that the alternative of remaining in the Isar building should be seriously considered.

The Boards of Appeal will be an essential part of the European Patent system for many years to come. AMBA therefore appeals to the Council to stop the ad-hoc interim measures that impede their functioning, and to critically analyse alternatives before taking any decisions that might damage their standing and their reputation and might be difficult/costly to reverse (relocation, reduction of posts, legislation etc.). We also support the idea of meeting with members of the AC and independent external experts to help find a common solution to this issue.

Yours sincerely,

The AMBA Committee.

Not all is well at Eponia (understatement of the decade), but outsiders who just follow the EPO based on its “news” section and/or Twitter account won’t know a thing!

There’s a lot of malicious stuff going on inside the EPO right now (irrespective of the imminent Christmas break, which is exploited by patent bigwigs to the detriment of examiners), so we will definitely release many documents later today. It’s my birthday today, but defending law-abiding staff representatives at this crucial time is a lot more important. Some believe that the EPO plans to just sack (if possible) the suspended staff representatives before Christmas. We strongly doubt it, as it has been over a year since a judge was suspended and it’s still an ongoing issue of heated dispute. █

Summary: The European Patent Office is now pulling the greenwashing card in an effort to improve its image

WIKIPEDIA defines greenwashing as “a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization’s products, aims or policies are environmentally friendly.”

“Media “presence” objectives spring to mind; the EPO is now interjecting itself into media after this sort of publicity stunt (usually coordinated with some partners such as IAM or UNEP in this latest case).”Well, the EPO is now doing exactly that (warning: this is an epo.org link) and we can’t help but wonder if this is part of the media presence campaign, or seeding of positive publicity. Around the same time that the EPO was negotiating with and working towards ~$1,000,000 in budget to fracking AstroTurfers from FTI Consulting the EPO also came up with the headline “EPO to donate EUR 100 000 to help refugees in Munich” (small money compared to what was spent manipulating the media).

The EPO’s latest charm offensive (of the greenwashing kind) is already in rather obscure British media and Chinese state media. Media “presence” objectives spring to mind; the EPO is now interjecting itself into media after this sort of publicity stunt (usually coordinated with some partners such as IAM or UNEP in this latest case).

“As many can probably agree, the cute and cuddly narrative which the EPO’s management is trying to prop up is enough to make some people vomit.”Speaking of opportunistic charm offensives, see this new article titled “EPO intends to grant patent to its cancer immune primer INTUVAX”. This will become very relavant when we cover future scandals. We are going show how the EPO uses cancer to advance its political agenda while also pretending to fight cancer. In reality, the EPO uses cancer to crush ‘unwanted’ staff.

As many can probably agree, the cute and cuddly narrative which the EPO’s management is trying to prop up is enough to make some people vomit. █

“When good men die their goodness does not perish, but lives though they are gone. As for the bad, all that was theirs dies and is buried with them.”

–Euripides

“In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism’s goal is to put the final nail into the competing technology’s coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of the earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental deficiency…”

–James Plamondon, Microsoft

Summary: A roundup of rigged press coverage, intended purely to serve Microsoft’s agenda

MICROSOFT makes a mockery and a joke out of the media. Today we cover some of the latest examples.

The latest Microsoft marketing and pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo from Microsoft's propagandist Mary Branscombe was published by IDG the other day. It’s a Microsoft ad, basically masquerading as an article not about Microsoft. Even worse was Ed Bott‘s (Ad[vertising] Bot[net]) Microsoft spin for Vista 10, pretending that privacy is not an issue at all. This article is so Orwellian, deceptive, and detached from reality that it’s not even worth responding to. It’s just more ZDNet (CBS-owned) propaganda and it’s executed by a longtime Microsoft propagandist that Microsoft pays. It’s not even journalism, it’s just a Microsoft comedy, dismissing every concern about privacy in Vista 10 and using derogatory labels like “tinfoil hats” (much like the author did “Linux fanatics” before). The piece was translated to other languages and further disseminated by the CBS-owned ZDNet for maximum impact, masquerading as “opinion” because it’s not at all objective and it is not journalism. “Microsoft boosters all around the world (even in Czech Republic nearby) link to this FUD,” wrote to us Martin earlier today.

Attacks on GNU/Linux have also come from Beta News last week. The site is mostly Microsoft propaganda these days (see the managing editor’s recent articles to better understand his agenda). Some of the people who work under him are even more closely connected to Microsoft and are actively showing this by attacking GNU/Linux and constantly promoting Microsoft. Microsoft MVPs are not journalists, they’re Microsoft loyalists, like external staff.

A Microsoft propaganda site whose strong links to Microsoft we covered here many time before has just published a piece that is openwashing Microsoft. Originally written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), the message is repeating Microsoft’s PR, including Microsoft’s moles inside the Linux Foundation. For example: “Ramji believes that under Nadella, “Open source is catching on and it’s on the verge of being mainstreamed at Microsoft. The real proof will come when open source is used in product groups.””

No, Microsoft is actively attacking Free/Open Source software in order to sell its proprietary software. This is well documented. Microsoft is not only attacking Munich and distorting a story from Italy (making up ‘facts’, i.e. “marketing”); it attacks FOSS as a whole. Here is last week’s timely rebuttal to Microsoft’s claims in Italy (the City Council of Pesaro to be precise). The article from Paolo Vecchi says that “Microsoft’s marketing team published a press release recently saying Office 365 is about 80% cheaper compared to the open source office suite, OpenOffice – with the figures stemming from reports in Italy and the City Council of Pesaro. The Redmond giant claims that to roll out Open Office, Pesaro incurred a one off cost of about €300,000 and had lots of problems with document formatting.

“But equally how would you convince a public sector organisation to migrate to your cloud services instead of using ‘expensive’ open source software?

“The obvious way would be to present a case study from a similar organisation together with a well written report commissioned to an “independent” consultancy firm. At this point your future customer has all the data and justifications required to sign on the dotted line.

“And some journalists are now presenting this case as fact of Microsoft Office 365 being 80% more economical than open source alternatives.

“I would argue that this is an isolated case and the PR efforts by big technology vendors, like many other methods, are being used to trick private and public organisations into signing contracts based on data or claims that may be not completely true.”

Microsoft’s PR is not factual at all. Offering massive discounts to manufacture false stories and change perception is no better than bribery. When a proprietary software giant (like Oracle or Microsoft) says “deliver savings to taxpayers” it means give shackles/lock-in with discount. The British government likes to make dumb statements like these every now and then, whenever it chooses to stay a slave of unbelievably greedy corporations with shoddy ‘products’ that the government has zero control over, proprietary software which is foreign too (with security flaws and national security-threatening back doors).

Microsoft’s efforts to pretend to be “open” don’t quite stop there because days ago we found misleading articles about “Open-Source” (with a dash, i.e. not really Open Source) Microsoft browser. Microsoft Emil (Emil Protalinski) was openwashing the browsers of Microsoft (we saw more of that several weeks ago with "Edge"), despite them being purely proprietary and standards-hostile.

Microsoft is just trying to re-brand IE and escape the bad name by means of deception, including some deceptive marketing and openwashing. “Unfortunately,” says the article, “Microsoft didn’t say how long, or how many developers, it took to build this proof-of-concept browser.”

A “proof-of-concept,” eh? Enough to generate some misleading headlines for PR.

At the bottom there’s promotional language advertising Microsoft with words like: “Microsoft Corporation is a public multinational corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of products and services predominantly related to computing”

This could also be rewritten (while remaining, still, factually correct) as follows: “Microsoft Corporation is a convicted monopolist financially headquartered in tax havens so as to illegally evade taxes. It licenses products it does not own (like Android), blackmails competitors, engages in various competition crimes, helps marketing companies accumulate extensive data about Windows users, and aids large-scale espionage by the NSA.” █