Summary: By continuing to lower the quality of patents and pretending the challenge is to remove the causes of criticism (i.e. axe the critics) Mr. Campinos reaffirms that he's another Battistelli if not something even worse (a better-marketed Battistelli)

AS WE NOTED two posts ago, EPO President António Campinos is a major booster of software patents in Europe (more so than Battistelli and far more so than Brimelow). What is going on? Has the EPC been burned to ashes at the top floor of the EPO's building in Munich? Is the management drunk at the pub? No, they're just drunk on power and knowing they're immune from prosecution they go "all the way" (giving themselves bonuses while diminishing the value of every European Patent ever granted!).

Is Europe about to become a patent trolls' favourite destination? Where low-quality patents can be used for extortion and blackmail? Against actual innovators? The EPO told examiners that patents were just fluffy cuddly things that "promote innovation". But if examination cannot be done properly, innovation in Europe will only be harmed, not promoted. It's innovation -- not litigation -- that examiners want, right? Unlike law firms...

"According to RPX Corp.," said this new tweet, "half of the patent suits filed yesterday were filed by patent trolls."

This is pretty typical. Some days as many as 90% of new lawsuits are filed by patent trolls. They typically use software patents (this is no secret) for all sorts of logistical reasons we've covered here for many years.

Imagine how bad things may become for European firms if the EPO continues along the same trajectory. I personally worry but also collectively, both as a programmer and writer who published over 10,000 articles/blog posts about patents.

A day ago the EPO wrote: "Nearly 18 000 patent applications relating to self-driving vehicle technologies have been filed with the EPO in the last decade, almost 4 000 of them in 2017 alone. More interesting findings on patents and self-driving vehicles here: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy #SelfDriving pic.twitter.com/C2mzKuiyCh"

I developed some software in the above area and it's crystal clear to me that they speak of software patents for the most part because the "self-driving" part just means computer vision, i.e. algorithms.

Worryingly enough, the EPO is willing to throw science away; today's EPO serves neither science nor technology, just big litigation firms. Appalling change in policy. Here it is liaising with CIPA (a Team UPC nest). It retweeted this tweet yesterday: "We are teaming up with @EPOorg to deliver an online services workshop, making online filing easier to understand. 🖥️🖱️ Join us on 13 or 14 Dec at @TheCIPA in #London."

"I developed some software in the above area and it's crystal clear to me that they speak of software patents for the most part because the "self-driving" part just means computer vision, i.e. algorithms."I responded with the simple analogy that when you're a patent office it is like liaising with oil giants when you're the EPA (in the US). It's not appropriate. CIPA, by the way, is lying as usual and it is using terms like "AI" to promote software patents in Europe. This is from yesterday: "At the outset of the Conference, the Chairman, International Liaison Committee introduced the speakers, who were expert in various field of IP Laws. He further enlightened the delegates with highlighting that Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) is agroup of over 2400 Chartered Patent Attorneys in UK qualified to act before European Patent Office (EPO)."

Yes, EPO. And on they move to "AI" by saying: "Various other attorneys shared their experiences on Patent searching, novelty, inventive step to the objections faced during prosecution in comparison with EPO and US practices etc. Among other, the session regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Mr. Saiful Khan was an eye opener about the present scenarios about upcoming automation world. He highlighted AI patents and the role that AI would play in day to day life. The use of AI would omnipresent in everything from home automation to transportation, communication, healthcare, education industries etc. He pointed on the need of developing an IP law that should focus on AI around the Globe. The UK Attorney's covered almost all areas of technology from pharmaceutical, chemical, biotechnology, biopharma, biology, electrical, electronics, software, communication etc in Patents. Various case laws were discussed that made a mark in the history of UK Laws and IP practices."

Is CIPA telling the Office what to do? Who does the Office serve or work for?

"Is CIPA telling the Office what to do? Who does the Office serve or work for?"Patrick Wingrove, a Managing IP writer (the site is cheerleading for UPC and patent trolls, which this site's authors view as the Good Guysâ„¢), has just been speaking to lawyers when he framed a trolls' case outcome (victory) as "helps telecoms and automotive companies" (incredible spin!) and we suppose the target audience includes politicians like Battistelli and Campinos. As we noted some days ago, patent trolls are being made principal speakers at EPO events (even the most notorious trolls, such as Mr. Spangenberg!).

Well, with friends like these one can tell that the EPO lost its mind completely; Erich Spangenberg sent me death wishes and now he is engaging in promotion of software patents under the guise at "AI" (at this think tank of patent lawyers).

Managing IP, covering a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office-centric event, has just said this:

Impact of artificial intelligence on IP strategy

The talk after lunch was about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on IP strategy.

Steve Harris, CTO at Aistemos, talked about how AI can help in the IP world. He said: "AI is particularly suited to making very complex but not strategic decisions." As a result, it can provide answers about, for example, what patents relate to.

Erich Spangenberg CEO of IPwe, said that AI tools can reveal who owns a patent, regardless of the name of the subsidiary on the cover of the patent. He stated that prices will fall and everyone will be using this technology in the next few years. He added that this will "massively increase productivity" and informed the audience that the result will be that "people other than IP experts will begin asking about metrics". He later observed that AI will lead to transparency as there will be "so much information sitting on the cover of a patent".

The EPO has just advertised this similar event (to the one with Spangenberg in it), painting everything with the "blockchain" brush: "EPO experts will attend the @IPRHelpdesk event on blockchain and IP. We look forward to seeing you all there: https://bit.ly/2SelloP"

Meanwhile (also this week) the software patents boosters from Marks & Clerk published "Artificial Intelligence: Is your business ready?"

""AI-related inventions" in this context is just a nonsensical term for software patent that are banned by the EPO's founding document, the EPC. Does anyone at the EPO still have a hard copy of it?"So these Team UPC boosters who profit from patent trolls and predation help spin software patents as "AI". How predictable. The EPO joined in yesterday with this tweet: "Our recent conference on patenting #artificialintelligence came up with some bold suggestions for drafting patent applications for AI-related inventions. To find out what they were, click here: http://bit.ly/AIpatents"

"AI-related inventions" in this context is just a nonsensical term for software patent that are banned by the EPO's founding document, the EPC. Does anyone at the EPO still have a hard copy of it? ⬆