THE EPO's management (Team Battistelli/Campinos; many overlaps exist and sometimes family connections too) has finally decided to break a week-long silence in order to pretend that it cares about what the public thinks and what the public says whilst in fact censoring the public. It's censoring comments of such users (or stakeholders) and 'externalities' who suffer from the EPO's actions (e.g. granting of European software patents).
"Thankfully we have some exclusive coverage on the way."The EPO's autocrats say that "[u]sers meet to discuss EPO Guidelines and agree to extend public consultation" (warning: epo.org link) but those so-called 'users' are actually fronting for large corporations. They're like lobbyists or representatives of corporations that aren't even European a lot of the time!
So much for "users"...
Nice twist on terms like "lobbyists"...
"The working party [corporations] discussed almost 200 user comments," says the EPO, "some of them very extensive."
How many were hidden away or binned for not being flattering enough to the cabal which had hijacked the Office?
Earlier today we noticed Maiwald commenting on the EPO's EBoA/EBA because it was promoted in Lexology. Very disappointing and shallow coverage, i.e. the usual from law firms. They seem to like things the way they are, even if it's corrosive to Europe as a whole (from chaos come legal bills!) and here's a screenshot.
Shallow coverage about G1/21
What happened to actual investigative journalism? Why is almost nobody covering the EBA blunder? The reason they churn out fluff and spam is that this is their business model. This won't change any time soon (or ever) because the EPO seeds bribery money/budget for those who play along with the propaganda and the cover-up.
Thankfully we have some exclusive coverage on the way. Teaser on the top/right. For those who think that one single person (a partner at a law firm) changing her job isn't the "big news"... ⬆