(I do think it amusing that the pollies have basically come out and said: "we're delaying the implementation of this policy, because the public response has been too positive" ;-)

Of course. And if they'd received a high negative response, they'd shelve it for that reason. And if they received little response, they'd decide that the public didn't care that much and therefore shelve the policy for that reason. The public participation is a farce, because whatever the public does, they can come up with a justification based on that response to do what they want anyway.

Elektroschock wrote:

Who are the persons? Unelected conspirators govern the EPO? Bilderberg group?

I don't think the staff union of the European Patent Office or the FFII wanted to suggest any kind of conspiracy theory. In my report on the FFII's criticsm of the proposed reform, that thinking is explained under the following subhead:

The theory of a "captive" court system

(contains a reference to what a justice of the SCOTUS said about the patent-specialized CAFC)

I pointed out that liberalization, which is what the EU is now mostly known for, was not the original number one priority.

I generally like the idea of a large European market and it's good if the EU opens up markets that its Member States are sometimes hesitant to liberalize/deregulate.