This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2017/05/09/eia17-and-media/.

● 05.09.17

●● ‘European Media Intervention Award’ (EIA), EPO Censorship, Self-Censorship, and Paid ‘Media Partners’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Yesterday: Death of ‘IP’ Media: Front Groups of Microsoft Described as “Representing SME Developers” by Bristows

=> Death of ‘IP’ Media: Front Groups of Microsoft Described as “Representing SME Developers” by Bristows

Reference: Concentration of media ownership (also a problem in Germany, where the largest media keeps deliberately silent about the EPO scandals)

=> ↺ Concentration of media ownership | keeps deliberately silent about the EPO scandals

Summary: How the multi-million Eurovision-esque lobbying event of Battistelli corrupts European media and when it does not legitimise frauds it contributes to an atmosphere of distrust in media

YESTERDAY, the EPO still tweeted plenty of links about ‘European Inventor Award’, as part of the latest expensive PR charade. This isn’t something that ordinary patent offices do; they don’t elevate one patent above another (violation of ‘patent neutrality’), they don’t waste millions of Euros of budget per year on silly, Eurovision-like ceremonies.

=> ↺ EPO | expensive PR charade

“This isn’t something that ordinary patent offices do; they don’t elevate one patent above another (violation of ‘patent neutrality’), they don’t waste millions of Euros of budget per year on silly, Eurovision-like ceremonies.”One thing we noticed yesterday is that Les Échos, Battistelli’s “media partner” in France, did this puff piece (and the EPO then linked to that). We already caught it censoring articles about the EPO and producing all sorts of puff pieces over the years (Battistelli later cites and quotes these puff pieces in letters that he sends). Well, such is the nature of today’s EPO. The media has been corrupted; a lot of the media that Battistelli and/or the EPO are greasing up is covering the UPC, for example, with misleading puff pieces. It has become almost as bad as IP Kat under Bristows, which exploits what's left of this blog for marketing purposes.

=> ↺ puff piece | censoring articles about the EPO | misleading puff pieces | exploits what's left of this blog for marketing purposes

Shouldn’t there be disclosures from Les Échos?

“The EPO now seeds over a million Euros in an endeavour to ‘plant’ favourable coverage.”Thankfully, we never accepted any corporate money (ever). We never will. Money corrupts coverage, even subconsciously. The other day we wrote about Brunel University London peddling snake oil that won't work for patents and days ago we saw another puff piece about it*. This puff piece/PR is the type of corporate journalism we often condemn for being little more than marketing. It’s paid for, directly or indirectly. The EPO now seeds over a million Euros in an endeavour to ‘plant’ favourable coverage. To think otherwise is to pretend that the media has no owners and is never sponsored. █ ______* In fact, the people behind it tried to contact me regarding my article (persuasion attempts), but I ignored them. I stand by my original assertions. At times, albeit not often, even EPO management sends me messages asking me to censor my articles, but these messages too I disregard as they ask for censorship and lack of accountability for what they do for Battistelli at the upper echelons (or higher floors) of EPO. The EPO is an enemy of the free press.

=> we wrote about Brunel University London peddling snake oil that won't work for patents | ↺ another puff piece about it | seeds over a million Euros

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend

=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.