Media and academia both [1, 2] bribed to toe the party line

Toeing the Line, Byam Shaw

Summary: Any attempts to properly assess and explain what happens in Europe's patent landscape are being drowned out by EPO-bribed and law firms-connected media; to make matters worse, the EPO's bribes have expanded to academia, so even scholarly work in this domain is corrupted by money of special interest groups

NOW THAT CRISPR patents are disallowed by the European Patent Office (EPO) -- as one can infer from a BoA case that the decision extends to other patents -- one can hope that software patents are next to be buried. António Campinos has openly supported these patents and in a Battistelli-like fashion pressured judges in the upcoming case concerning simulations. Just imagine the reaction if the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) pressured the Federal Circuit in some case concerning 35 U.S.C. €§ 101. Absurd, right? But apparently not in Europe...

"Where's the proper journalism about this case? There has been almost none. We just saw many statements from monopolisers and their lawyers, not journalists. The EPO has of course not uttered a single word about this. It has been a whole week. It hopes nobody will notice; that might keep a flow of patent applications..."An advocacy site of monopolisers of life/nature is still pushing that sick old agenda ("Broad Institute presses for CRISPR settlement after EPO revocation" is the latest). Trying to "settle" using fake patents? That does not make any sense.

Where's the proper journalism about this case? There has been almost none. We just saw many statements from monopolisers and their lawyers, not journalists. The EPO has of course not uttered a single word about this. It has been a whole week. It hopes nobody will notice; that might keep a flow of patent applications...

As it turns out, there's also a site called European Pharmaceutical Review (not the same as the above "Review" or WIPR) churning out press releases as though they're articles. Is this journalism or promotional marketing? Has media coverage regarding patents been reduced to "moves" (which company hired which people) and which patent is being advertised? Here's how it reads:

Inflazome have announced that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have granted approval to patents for the company’s small molecule compounds that show useful activity in inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome activation.

The patent application WO 2016/131098 will be accepted by the USPTO as US 10,538,487 on 21 January 2020 and by the EPO as EP 3,259,253 on 15 January 2020.

The pharma business currently has two NLRP3 inflammasome inhibiting compounds in Phase I trials, Inzomelid and Somalix. These treatments can be used in a range of disorders, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and motor neurone disease, where inflammation is a key factor and starts or progresses due to the NLRP3 inflammasome.

So pending appeals/opposition (we presume) some company was granted approval to one patent among tens of millions and we're supposed to think this is "the news"?

"To manufacture an illusion of UPC "progress" Gregory Bacon of Bristows makes it seem like "decision in the “ECB bond purchase program” case on 24 March 2020" has something to do with UPC!"It's even more laughable if one turns to Bristows' site, which says: "The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) has announced here that its Second Senate will hand down its decision in the “ECB bond purchase program” case on 24 March 2020."

Compare this to the misleading headline. Totally surreal! To manufacture an illusion of UPC "progress" Gregory Bacon of Bristows makes it seem like "decision in the “ECB bond purchase program” case on 24 March 2020" has something to do with UPC! Because of a judge's name!

The EPO has meanwhile tweeted: "The first results from our Academic #Research Programme are now available. They offer new insights into the #patent system."

"Anything the EPO touches turns to something awful."This links to the latest spammy 'news' item (warning: epo.org link), wherein the EPO now brags about bribing scholars to manufacture propaganda for patent maximalists. When did the EPO become a propaganda department rather than a patents assessment branch? The EPO is as proud about bribing academia as it is about bribing the media (as it does, a lot).

When the EPO says "Academic Research Programme" it simply means a programme for legitimising bad EPO policies and practices by means of bribery offered to corruptible/desperate scholars. The opening paragraphs are presenting Battistelli's mate (Ménièr) as some sort of genius and bribery of academia as some sort of 'charitable' act. To quote:

The EPO has published six research reports developed with funding from its Academic Research Programme. The research used patent data to investigate topics such as financing for innovation, knowledge transfer, trade, tracking inventions in the marketplace, and the growth of technologies to tackle climate change. Grants totalling €300 000 were awarded for the six projects in 2017, with the researchers presenting their final results at a workshop hosted by the EPO in Munich last month.

EPO Chief Economist [sic] Yann Ménière, who chairs the programme's scientific committee, said: "The impact of the patent system on industry, society and the economy raises important questions for policymakers. Careful, robust, peer-reviewed academic research can often be the best way to get answers. The insights these new results give us into different aspects of the IP ecosystem and the functioning of innovation cycles can be very useful to the EPO, other researchers, and innovators alike."

As they're funded by the EPO, of course there's expectation that they will "toe the line" and exploit the veneer of "academia" or "research". A number of years ago we took note, on several occasions, of the corrosive effect it has on academia. It erodes trust and breaches a number of rules. Anything the EPO touches turns to something awful. ⬆