They'd rather ignore these abuses as if those are just "conspiracy theories" or "not newsworthy"

Summary: European Patent Office (EPO) abuses are of no interest to the mainstream media, which claims that its goal is to inform the public; the EPO relies on such convenient complicity and it keeps breaking the law at a far greater scale than FIFA ever did

HALF a decade ago when we started covering EPO abuses Battistelli had already been at the helm for a number of years, causing huge damage little by little (all this damaged has merely been cemented or 'normalised' by António Campinos).

"The EPO is co-hosting an event with a front group of patent trolls (no sarcasm, no kidding). Has the media said anything about it? Not a word."Suffice to say, the media no longer explains what's wrong with software patents in Europe; it never touches the subject and if/when it does, which is very rare, it speaks to no actual software professionals^*. When it speaks about 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 it focuses on aspects such as patent trolls instead of the patents these troll tend to rely on.

Watch what the EPO wrote yesterday: "How can you use alliances, licences, spin-offs, acquisitions and divestments to make the most of your technology?"

This is about an event in Dublin (Ireland). The EPO is co-hosting an event with a front group of patent trolls (no sarcasm, no kidding). Has the media said anything about it? Not a word. Too busy covering celebrities and football...

"When the case proceeded the EPO bombarded the media with puff pieces about love and solidarity (behind the scenes it attacked justice itself)."Meanwhile, under everybody's nose, a whole branch of the legal system is under attack. Recall G 2/19 (Enlarged Board of Appeal) and how it had been 'fixed' to the point where the 'Haar question' wasn't even touched. The very legality of this system is a taboo subject nobody -- not even a panel of judges -- can touch. What is this farce? What has Campinos said about it? When the case proceeded the EPO bombarded the media with puff pieces about love and solidarity (behind the scenes it attacked justice itself). It's gross. It's just obscene.

Yesterday Bart van Wezenbeek wrote about something called "Recordati Ireland Limited" (apparently big pharma) and this EPO case:

A claim defining a compound as having a certain purity would lack novelty over a prior art disclosure describing the same compound only if the prior art disclosed the claimed purity at least implicitly, for example by way of a method for preparing said compound, the method inevitably resulting in the claimed purity. Such a claim, however, would not lack novelty if the disclosure of the prior art needs to be supplemented, for example by suitable (further) purification methods allowing the skilled person to arrive at the claimed purity.

Well, van Wezenbeek might as well mention that the European Patent Office's (EPO) Board of Appeal has no juridical independence, even according to itself. It's a theatre, it's not real justice.

And where's the corporate media now?

Has corporate media become synonym of corrupt media?

"Some of the media did cover some of these issues several years ago, but then came EPO management with bribes and threats. They nowadays control the media."It's very busy repeating the official EPO propaganda, dressed up as a 'study', as we shall explain in our next post.

Why has the mainstream media not explained to the general public that the EPO is illegally granting patents on life and nature? Or that it became a tool of Monsanto/Bayer after heavy lobbying and entryism?

Where are you, so-called 'journalists'? Why do you ignore EPO staff that begs you to write about it?

The EU Parliament's own site has just mentioned it as follows:

On 19 September, MEPs voted in favour of a resolution stating that plants obtained through conventional breeding processes, such as crossing and selection, must not become patentable.

They fear that allowing natural plant varieties to be patented would concentrate plant breeding material in the hands of a few powerful multinational companies. The resulting loss of genetic variety could in turn endanger food security and raise food prices.

[...]

The aim of plant breeding is to create new, more resistant, more productive and better quality varieties of plants. Innovation in the field is essential to guarantee sufficient food production at reasonable prices, especially with the changing environmental conditions caused by climate change.

Traditionally breeders have been able to protect their plant varieties through plant variety rights (PVR). The main difference with patenting is that PVR would not stop other farmers from using protected varieties for further breeding and developing new varieties.

We're still waiting for even a single mainstream media outlet to write about it (not EU sites and small blogs). But we don't hold our breath. Some of the media did cover some of these issues several years ago, but then came EPO management with bribes and threats. They nowadays control the media. From this chain of control come great abuses. It's assured. ⬆ ____ ^* I've yet to meet a software developer who supports such patents. I hear that some exist, but I never met one. Those that exist no longer develop anything. The litigation industry does not represent programmers.