And guess who runs EUIPO now...
Summary: Propaganda terms such as "intellectual property rights" and meaningless concepts like "technical effect" are being used to promote so-called 'computer-implemented inventions' (software patents by another name)
THE
software patents advocacy by the European Patent Office (
EPO) isn't so closeted anymore. The
'Orange One' (
Battistelli replica) openly insinuates that the EPO would help the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (
USPTO) overcome 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 as if breaking the law and crushing the courts is the actual goal.
Speaking of the 'Orange One' (derogatory name for Donald Trump), he loves buzzwords even more than Battistelli. "HEY HI" (AI) is the leading buzzword at the moment...
Remember the even the software patents that the EPO
does grant are thrown out by judges. These judges don't care for "HEY HI" and won't bother looking into shallow 'reporting' about how "HEY HI" will replace judges...
We've meanwhile noticed how the EPO uses meaningless nonsense like "intellectual property rights" and "technical effect" to justify granting illegal patents such as monopolies on algorithms in
this . To quote yesterday's tweet: "Innovative & aesthetic designs can be protected by a variety of intellectual property rights. However, only structures that elicit a technical effect fulfil the requirements for #patentability. More on #3Dprinting and IP here..." (links to a page about software patents)
The EPO, as we noted earlier this year in relation to the above page, has become totally shameless about granting invalid patents such as co-called 'computer-implemented inventions'. Also from
yesterday's EPO tweets: "At this year's #SearchMatters event for patent search professionals, we've planned an interactive workshop on computer-implemented inventions for #3Dprinting-related technologies."
Yes, they've said it. They admit that they offer patents on algorithms. Also retweeted by the EPO yesterday because of
this tweet that said "Tomorrow [today] the @EU_IPO & @EPOorg join forces to explore how IP rights relate to video game design, development and commercialisation."
Mixing together totally separate things again? Things such as trademark law, copyright law and patent law are inherently different. Patents on games themselves aren't permitted (algorithms are excluded from patentability). Will an EU agency (EUIPO) help disguise that?
EPO insiders surely know about
serious corruption associated with EUIPO and EPO cross-pollination (giving jobs to friends). The EUIPO was retweeted by the EPO yesterday was
this tweet which said: "Tuesday 25 February at 10.00. The EUIPO and the @EPOorg come together to explore the what and the how of protecting the IP of the gaming world."
The gaming world is
code; what does the EPO have to do in such an event (if not promotion of software patents)?
⬆
