Microsoft is the sole leading sponsor this year (same as last year)

Summary: In an event steered if not stuffed by patent radicals such as Bristows and Microsoft (abusive, serial litigators) there are no balanced panels or even reasonable discussions

THE EPO is not interested in patent quality. Everyone knows it by now, both inside and outside the Office.

According to patent maximalists' tweets from Fordham, "[i]n the EPO it is easier to get a method for diagnosis patent than in the US."

"Bristows staff -- the one who 'took over' IP Kat -- was attending this echo chamber of the patent microcosm recently."Well, CPIP treats patent quality as a nuisance (they ask for Alice to be undermined and software patents to be back to old glory). They do not treat quality as a desirable feature; they profit not from quality. The same goes for some firms that say the EPO more easily grants software patents than the USPTO these days. Bristows staff -- the one who 'took over' IP Kat -- was attending this echo chamber of the patent microcosm recently. She professed admiration for Microsoft's chief patent bully and quoted (or paraphrased) a judge as saying that "everyone is equipped to deal with science."

"Sorry to disappoint the Honorable judge," said one of the comments, "but that is an absurd comment, demonstrating ignorance and delusion." An earlier comment said: "No judges from the EPO Boards of appeal present?"

"At two levels, both technical and juridical, the EPO has been unhinged and is not totally out of control."Of course not! That would be disruptive to the echo chamber.

The attack on the appeal boards has been (in our humble assessment) intended to help mask the sharp decline in patent quality and/or suppress criticism related to that. At two levels, both technical and juridical, the EPO has been unhinged and is not totally out of control. ⬆

"A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands."

--Microsoft, internal document [PDF]