THE tradition of buzzwords and other nonsense is not new. It has gone on at the European Patent Office (EPO) for at least a decade. We used to joke about "as such" before Battistelli became President and nowadays we mock António Campinos for all sorts of ridiculous mumbo-jumbo (remember he's not a technical person!). Our favourite nowadays is "hey hi" (AI) and blockchains -- typically masks for software patents being granted in Europe although they're legally invalid^* -- all in the name of pseudo-'novelty' (novelty in buzzwords and hype waves for the most part; great marketing!). We wrote about that as recently as the past weekend (so-called 'machine learning' as something not being reducible to maths/stats?).

"Experienced patent examiners certainly know that those aren't properties and they're not rights; neither technically nor legally."Anyway, when dealing with the EPO in the management sense -- especially nowadays -- remember you deal with people who got the job because of people they knew rather than what they knew. This is embarrassing for Europe and embarrassing for the whole discipline. As recently as yesterday the patent trolls' front groups (LES/LESI) were boosted by some account and then retweeted by EPO. Here's what they said: "The High-Growth Technology Business Conference revolves around the importance of engaging Intellectual Property in your business. on the 5th November we are conducting IP and business track workshops..."

"Intellectual Property..."

"IP..."

All that nonsense. Experienced patent examiners certainly know that those aren't properties and they're not rights; neither technically nor legally. But these are the propagandists the EPO nowadays associates with, framing patents as "IP". Honesty is no more. It's like copyright giants calling people who share "pirates" (equating the act of sharing with murder).

"It's like copyright giants calling people who share "pirates" (equating the act of sharing with murder)."Yesterday the EPO boosted U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu with his 'novel' buzzwords for invalid software patents. In his own words, as per EPO: "Andrei Iancu, Director @USPTO: “AI, Self-driving vehicles, biotech, personalised medicine, 5G communications. There will be technologies we cannot even imagine yet. Our IP system must be robust and flexible enough to accommodate and enable these technologies.”

So what have we got here?

"IP..."

"AI..."

All that usual nonsense.

Then came "the next Industrial Revolution", as per this tweet: "Next on the #EPOPIC stage: Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Director of the @USPTO will talk about #IntellectualProperty and the next Industrial Revolution..."

"They share the same nonsensical buzzwords, as we've been pointing out for a number of months."Say what?

"Intellectual Property?"

"Industrial Revolution?"

Then came Campinos with "IP and the next Industrial Revolution". In the EPO's own words: "EPO President António Campinos: “I’m delighted that today Andrei Iancu is here, as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Director of the @USPTO, to talk about the subject of ‘IP and the next Industrial Revolution’.”"

Notice the pattern. They share the same nonsensical buzzwords, as we've been pointing out for a number of months. Can anyone keep a straight face in this freak show? The EPO also used the hashtags #4IR #3Dprinting and #blockchain in here. To quote: "The EPO develops Patent Insight Reports in order to show the value of #patent information, but also to analyse future & emerging technologies #EPOPIC #4IR #3Dprinting #blockchain"

"Got to have "smart" there too. We're losing count of all these ridiculous acronyms/fluff (there's also "IoT", "cloud", "app" and "ICT")."They also spoke of: "enable technologies like #blockchain, #smarthome technologies..."

Got to have "smart" there too. We're losing count of all these ridiculous acronyms/fluff (there's also "IoT", "cloud", "app" and "ICT").

What ever happened to "CII"? Oh, look, as recently as yesterday Watchtroll's editor Eileen McDermott used the lie that is "CII". In her summary she spoke of "Federal Circuit holding that computer-implemented inventions that do not improve the basic functions of the computer..." (no link because we never link to Watchtroll anymore)

"Campinos has the audacity to speak of transparency? Because wrongly-granted patents can be opposed for a fee (for a limited timespan and no assurance of positive outcome)?"That "CII" nonsense has spread to the US, as did the "AI" hype. Campinos on "hey hi" in yesterday's tweets: "AI is impacting on the whole IP system, and even forcing us to question foundational concepts, such as the notion of ‘inventorship’, says the EPO President."

So if a computer can process an application or generate one, then you cannot do your work anymore? That capability has been around for like half a century! Why does this 'panic' become so 'trendy' all of a sudden? Oh my god! Computer algorithms... can do stuff!

"Anyone can oppose a European patent within a period of nine months," the EPO wrote, "from the mention of its grant. This kind of transparency can only help achieve converging views on quality & make our #patent system stronger, says EPO President António Campinos."

Campinos has the audacity to speak of transparency? Because wrongly-granted patents can be opposed for a fee (for a limited timespan and no assurance of positive outcome)?

This has nothing to do with transparency; just like "quality" at the EPO no longer means quality, instead it means speed (pendency).

Going back to Iancu, in the EPO's own words: "Andrei Iancu Director @USPTO: “ Our IP system creates a pro-competitive cycle. IP creates perceptual innovation at accelerating rates.”

"This has nothing to do with transparency; just like "quality" at the EPO no longer means quality, instead it means speed (pendency)."So says a man from the patent litigation industry, who got his job after he had worked for Donald Trump (nepotism likely). There's also this: "Society does not know progress without a robust patent system, says Andrei Iancu Director..."

So no progress before patents existed? Incredible statement! ⬆ ______ ^* There's this new example of software patents being rejected in Europe and another new one in the US: (35 U.S.C. €§ 101 in Simio v Flexsim; more new examples are, as usual, in our Daily Links)

This summer, the District of Utah dismissed Simio’s lawsuit against Flexsim Software, finding that the asserted patent was not patent eligible under Section 101. Simio responded by asking the court to vacate its judgment or, alternatively, allow Simio leave to file an amended complaint based on the Federal Circuit’s Cellspin v. Fitbit decision. Simio argued that new factual allegations in its proposed amended complaint ought to prevent the court from dismissing the case. The court disagreed with Simio.

The court first noted that while it could allow Simio to amend its complaint, an amendment could not “transform the deficient patent claim from one drawn to an ineligible software system to one directed toward an eligible machine.”

The court then addressed Simio’s argument that, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s recent Cellspin decision, factual allegations in the amended complaint preclude dismissal at the pleading stage. The court again disagreed. “The Federal Circuit made clear that its decision should not be interpreted to mean that any allegation about inventiveness, wholly divorced from the claims or the specification, defeats a motion to dismiss automatically ... Simio’s allegations of inventiveness are simply not plausible.”