10.14.17
Lying and Faking Now a Standard Procedure at the European Patent Office
Reference: Diesel emissions scandal
Summary: The European Patent Organisation (EPO) under the leadership (or chairmanship) of Christoph Ernst continues to relay lies from Battistelli’s Office, SUEPO rejects these, the Office lies about SMEs, prioritises Microsoft (again), and probably buys fake Twitter “followers”
THE PAST week was eventful at the EPO because of the relatively secretive meeting of national delegates, who expectedly fulfilled Battistelli’s wishes of French succession. We prefer not to comment any further on that. We sincerely hope that Campinos will surprise his critics and put things back on track, i.e. improve patent quality, bring back the dismissed staff representatives, reinstate the judge from the appeals boards and maybe improve the opposition/appeal process (to improve patent quality). Campinos looks like a decent person and we hope he can grasp the feelings in the minds and hearts of EPO staff. Leadership must do that.
“We sincerely hope that Campinos will surprise his critics and put things back on track, i.e. improve patent quality, bring back the dismissed staff representatives, reinstate the judge from the appeals boards and maybe improve the opposition/appeal process (to improve patent quality).”Yesterday we wrote about the EPO's lies regarding patent quality (intentional lies, measuring the wrong things intentionally). It’s almost as though Christoph Ernst does not care enough about this problem, which SUEPO is again stressing (see what it wrote yesterday in this update). EPO staff is very smart; it’s very difficult to fool these people. They know firsthand about the decline in patent quality and they can also see that assessment tools for quality — as used by Battistelli — are scientifically unsound. It’s insulting to their intelligence. Kieren McCarthy from The Register has criticised these repeatedly. The only ones eager to deny it or refrain from commenting on the matter are the patent microcosm. A few courageous exceptions like Dr. Thorsten Bausch should be commended for breaking that silence.
There are other EPO lies that we cannot help but notice every day this month. This tweet from yesterday, for example, said this: “Share your thoughts on Twitter about the benefits of a strong IP portfolio. Use this hashtag: #IPforSMEs Details: bit.ly/SMEstudies2017 pic.twitter.com/ztioBUZotJ” (the EPO has been posting things like these every day for about a fortnight).
“The EPO totally lacks integrity.”They even came up with that stupid hashtag, #IPforSMEs (remember that the EPO actively DISCRIMINATES against SMEs, based on leaks which show that this was centrally planned). Companies such as Microsoft receive preferential treatment and yesterday the EPO promoted Microsoft’s proprietary formats. “How to file in DOCX format? Find out during this interactive workshop,” it said. As we mentioned/noted the other day, this is just one among many examples of the strong relationship between the EPO and Microsoft, a company with a history of corruption (including, quite notably, in Munich these days). For those who don’t know, Microsoft gives “gifts” to the Mayor of Munich and hires a firm to do fake “consulting” and help undermine GNU/Linux (LiMux). Microsoft has tried hard to undermine LiMux for many years (without success).
Much of this is only to be expected from the Office that became accustomed to lying and faking (e.g. ‘evidence’ against staff, performance, and even Twitter following; notice how the proportion of fake Twitter followers of the EPO has grown. Compare earlier this year to the latest).
“These are already-debunked claims (lies) from the EPO, but in Latin America it’s apparently credible enough to be worth citing.”The EPO totally lacks integrity. Yesterday the EPO also retweeted this thing about SMEs. It just links to the EPO as ‘evidence’. These are already-debunked claims (lies) from the EPO, but in Latin America it’s apparently credible enough to be worth citing.
Yesterday the EPO went further than painting patents as an “SME” thing; it painted these as academic or “university”, failing to explain that patents are assigned (not “owned” as the EPO put it). Moreover, when public money supports universities (as is often the case) patents as such should be verboten. They privatise something which should be given back to the public free of barbwire. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA