The EPO's Corrupt Dealings With Microsoft Never Addressed, Only Worsened
SEVERAL years ago the EPO illegally outsourced almost everything to Microsoft. Nobody bothered to investigate this, albeit international lawyers contacted us. They wanted more information in order to press the matter.
Then the EPO started extensive cover-up. See, their solution to illegal acts is to hide those illegal acts, not to justify them or address them. This is very typical at the EPO, and it's one of the many reasons it is a serious liability to the EU's reputation and therefore the EU's stability.
What's shown at the left side is what staff of the EPO sees when trying to access "internal" (read: at Microsoft) data. The EPO's intranet - among many other things - was outsourced to Microsoft, which is very problematic because it helps Microsoft spy on the competition and manipulate examiners dealing with its files. Microsoft has its hands on all of the EPO's communications. It didn't just provide software tools; it directly controls everything. It misuses this control1,2.
What would the EPC say about the EPO giving one applicant total control over the EPO, where "digital-only" is increasingly the only way to go?
There is also the aspect of security. When there's a mega-data breach, which is inevitable at Microsoft, would the EPO tell applicants or "customers" that it's nothing to worry about? █
_____
-
[Old] Microsoft defends its right to read your email
Although the move could be perceived as a breach of trust, Microsoft says it's allowed to make such unilateral decisions. It pointed to its terms of service: When you use Microsoft communication products -- Outlook, Hotmail, Windows Live -- you agree to "this type of review ... in the most exceptional circumstances," Frank wrote.
-
[Old] Microsoft tightens privacy policy after admitting to reading journalist's emails
The new rules prevent the company from snooping on customers’ communications without first convincing two legal teams, independent of the internal investigation, that they have evidence sufficient to obtain a court order were one applicable.
The company did not apologise for the search.