-- Leo's gemini proxy

-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...

-- Connected

-- Sending request

-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB

● 06.07.21

●● EPO Management: We Listen to Users, Especially Monopolists and Overzealous Litigation Firms

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

↺ Video download link


Summary: The media manipulation or the perception management campaign seems to have geared up a bit; somehow, miraculously enough, nobody seems to care (anymore) about the EPO's EBoA/EBA being stacked and utterly incapable of ruling properly on patent matters in Europe's second-largest institution

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).


↺ Battistelli

↺ Campinos

censoring comments of such users

↺ 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!

↺ “[u]sers meet to discuss EPO Guidelines and agree to extend public consultation”

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.

↺ commenting on the EPO’s EBoA/EBA

↺ promoted in Lexology

Shallow coverage about G1/21

We’ve also just noticed Amy Sandys posting another marketing spam piece disguised as ‘journalism’. As if there’s no actual news for Juve to cover anymore. Posted under “People & Business” was a so-called ‘report’ about one single person moving from one law firm to another (connected to Team UPC, never mind the aggressive nature of the firms and their media control at Pinsent Masons).

↺ Juve

↺ from one law firm to another

> Image: AC Legal Fudge

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”… █

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

Permalink > Image: Mail

 Send this to a friend


↺ Send this to a friend



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

-- Response ended

-- Page fetched on Sun Sep 19 16:37:35 2021