This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2020/03/08/perpetually-lying-about-quality/.
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s only getting worse and it cannot be swept under the rug perpetually
Source: one year ago, SUEPO publication.
=> one year ago, SUEPO publication
Summary: Tactics based around suppression of truth-telling never work out in the long run; there’s a massive crisis brewing in EPOnia and bribery (of media and academia) cannot silence everyone
THE QUALITY of patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) will go down as long as the EPO silences those who speak about it.
=> ↺ EPO | silences those who speak about it
SUEPO and CSC, to their credit, have not given up. As representation collectives of actual scientists one ought to expect them to guard science, not pseudoscience and career-climbing corrupt officials who use Donald Trump associates to conduct 'hoax' studies.
Last night we saw Novagraaf’s Valérie Stephann with her article promoted in Lexology, linked to her employer’s site. As usual, she neglects to say there’s no independence for judges at the EPO (all law firms have given up speaking about this) when talking about “Revised Rules of Procedure at EPO Boards of Appeal” (the implicit rule is, just do whatever the President of the Office says and wants, or risk ending up like the bullied colleague, Patrick Corcoran).
=> ↺ article | ↺ her employer’s site | no independence for judges
D Young & Co LLP’s Angela Mottershead and Andrew Johnson have meanwhile mentioned in Lexology (again paid promotion of their piece) new fee hikes, effective in less than a month from now:
=> ↺ mentioned | ↺ their piece
European Patent Office (EPO) fee increases come into effect 01 April 2020. The EPO usually reviews official fees every two years. Most of the rises are moderate increases in the order of 4% or 5% and in-line with inflation. Some are higher and worth noting.
Notable increases include:
- Appeal fee – for most appellants, this rises by close to 20% (€450) to €2,705.
- Requests for copies of documents – certified copies of applications, priority documents, communication of file contents and additional copies of documents cited in search reports; all more than double in cost.
These are massive increases (again!). Look under: “Fee for appeal – for an appeal filed by an entity other than those referred to in Rule 6(4) and (5) EPC (011)” (further down the page).
It goes up from 2,255 euros to 2,705 euro (450 euros being a 19.96% increase). Battistelli did this too, repeatedly, narrowing appeal windows and raising costs. It makes it easier to hide if not fake patent quality (as judged by rates or numbers of decisions overturned). In the age of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tried doing the same thing to PTAB.
=> ↺ USPTO
Staying with these self-promotional pieces in Lexology (mere copies of originals that nobody sees), AA Thornton’s Stuart Greenwood wrote:
=> ↺ in Lexology | ↺ originals
The EPO recently announced their fees are to increase on the 1 April 2020. This is in line with their typical practice of increasing fees every two years.
The average increase will be 4% for most fees including for the appeal fee for specific entities*, however the appeal fee for larger appellants increases by 20%, from €2255 to €2705.
In the majority of cases, the EPO fees are associated with a payment deadline. The fee you pay is determined by the currently active fee schedule, rather than the fee schedule that may be in force on the day of the deadline.
This means that regardless of whether a fee deadline falls due on or after the 1 April 2020 (when the fee schedule is due to change), you may be able to pay the fee before the 1 April 2020 and thus at the current, lower, rate.
[...]
Also, if a party is considering filing an appeal against an issued decision, they may wish to do so before the fee increases on 1 April 2020.
So the first day of April will see jokers of the EPO making it even harder to appeal. Appeals just ‘slow down’ the rubber-stamping operations anyway….
“We’re not pessimistic; seeing how the UPC collapsed, partly due to EPO corruption (courts have seen ample evidence of it), we’re certain there’s more ‘karma’ to come.”The EPO cannot hide its demise forever (as judged by validity or legitimacy of granted patents). Campinos still lies to the media, which seems perfectly happy to print the lies (more examples of that shortly), especially when the EPO bribes the media (clear misuse of EPO money).
Days ago the EPO was bragging about transparency (openwashing) and it boils down to the fact that it must, as a matter of law, share patent information (this is, after all, the whole point of patents, never mind if that’s causing harm like treble damages for infringement).
The EPO retweeted this openwashing (Open Data), but it is still not transparent because it is profoundly corrupt and true transparency would expose the corruption — another subject we’ll cover later today.
=> ↺ retweeted this openwashing (Open Data)
We’re not pessimistic; seeing how the UPC collapsed, partly due to EPO corruption (courts have seen ample evidence of it), we’re certain there’s more ‘karma’ to come. Wait and watch…
Benjamin Henrion has just recalled that software patents opponent Pieter “Hitnjens [sic] said in his last video interview that the patent system was a giant lie, and based on beliefs…”
=> ↺ has just recalled | software patents
He also quoted this bit about “EPO “small inquiry” to the German government by the FDP fraction in the German Bundestag deserves to be mentioned…”
=> ↺ quoted
The complaint at the FCC (there are several concerning the EPO, including UPC/A) will likely yield some interesting press coverage soon, not like the puff piece Campinos netted in Spiegel some days ago. █
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.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).