Summary: An important discussion regarding the role of IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) in the debate about EPO abuses

TWO days ago we wrote two articles which mentioned how IAM had put at risk a source, despite repeatedly being asked not to do so. It didn't exactly shock us because we generally view IAM as a pro-patent Establishment (USPTO, EPO management, software patents, large corporations) site. Sharing evidence with them is unwise. There was an article earlier this month (from AOL) titled "Innovating In A World Of Patent Lawsuits"; well, in the view of the likes of IAM, it's all about "Profiting In A World Of Patent Lawsuits". The more, the merrier. That's how they make money.

Why do we write this article? It's just a word of warning to anyone who deems IAM trustworthy. The EPO is now spending of nearly a million dollars on the media. IAM writers already have a history of receiving money from the EPO, by their own admission.

"It's just a word of warning to anyone who deems IAM trustworthy."We already saw IAM relaying EPO management's talking points. That was a month and a half ago, only two weeks after the EPO had passed around the contract involving the million-dollar contract. The article that IAM published at the time was basically a sort of EPO 'damage control', replying to my allegations about preferential treatment of selected large corporations. That was very shortly before the EPO sent me nastygrams -- something which IAM dropped hints of (days before it actually happened). The EPO spokesperson said something which only served to insinuate "defamation". Remember that what I wrote at the time wasn't inaccurate, it was just strongly-worded. This whole EPO program was created for Microsoft because of Microsoft (EPO effectively, on the balance of probabilities, changed its rules in exchange for Microsoft paying a lot more money in the form of patent applications).

I asked someone in the legal community if IAM was likely doing all of this internationally or even maliciously. "Although you may be right," I was told, "I'd be personally a little surprised if IAM betrayed a confidential source; Joff Wild is no lover of TechRights, which is a matter of common knowledge..."

Regarding evidence that we shared with IAM (potentially but not necessarily including details about a source), we made some further inquiries as well. We were asked: "Can you be sure that IAM has not received the original documents via another source?"

"It effectively served material to Team Battistelli, on a silver platter, by publishing what I repeatedly told them must not be published."The item that the EPO was bullying me (with legal threats) over was definitely not provided by another source. I can't tell for sure if IAM was acting as some kind of courier for the EPO's management here, but it's not impossible. It effectively served material to Team Battistelli, on a silver platter, by publishing what I repeatedly told them must not be published.

For those who wonder what this was all about, the gist of the blog post in dispute is as follows:

• Microsoft uses patent extortion -- or racketeering as per RICO Act -- to coerce companies (at least 4 companies so far this year) into Microsoft's Linux-hostile agenda. There are threats of litigation or actual litigation at hand (with conditional settlement) to achieve this. It's a subject Techrights has been covering extensively since 2006.



• Microsoft pressured the EPO into the whole preferential treatment farce. We know this for sure.



• An EPO employee is shown in his (leaked) E-mail pressuring those below him to concentrate on granting patents to Microsoft (before all others), thereby helping Microsoft against European companies like TomTom (see the 2009 lawsuit and 'settlement').



• This EPO employee has been publicly promoting the UPC, despite his job being the granting of worthy patent monopolies (proper, thorough prior art search, never too rushed), not setting or lobbying on matters of law.

That's all stuff that we can support with concrete evidence, hence I stand by what I said. They just caught me off guard at (almost) midnight on a Friday. My solicitor's response explains why that's an act of trickery.

It will be interesting to see if IAM has something to say on this matter. Judging by the many tweets they sent our way yesterday, they still don't have a very effective rebuttal. ⬆