The Danish Consulate in Munich; Photo by Stauning

Summary: A large protest waged by staff of the EPO targets one of the key facilitators of Battistelli's terrifying tyranny

THERE IS no denying that the EPO has gone rogue, especially at the top. Despite an expected commitment to serve the public, the EPO is lowering the quality of patents to reach business goals rather than provide public service, then bragging about it. 92% of patent applications in US end up enshrined as patents, so it's a plague that spreads to Europe right now, especially with allowance of software patents. Our sources tell us that staff of the EPO is not happy about it; this erodes the image of the EPO and alienates some of the principal stakeholders. It's a short-term 'gain' that may only lead to a long-term collapse of this system, due in part to perceived illegitimacy (the correct perception that EPO increasingly serves large corporations, not inventors).

"These protests are aimed at the Dane Kongstad, who helps protect Benoît Battistelli rather than oversee or work independently like he is supposed to."A couple of weeks ago, months after we had explained the Administrative Council's apparent collusion with the EPO's management in a series of articles, protests were planned and they did materialise. While we covered this at a preparatory level we have not yet properly provided second-hand coverage from those who attended to protests at the Danish Consulate. These protests are aimed at the Dane Kongstad, who helps protect Benoît Battistelli rather than oversee or work independently like he is supposed to.

The protests were covered by Florian Müller in his blog where his latest post on it says:

It's time for a follow-up on what's going on at the European Patent Office. The day before yesterday, the EPO staff union, SUEPO, took to the streets of Munich again--this time around, approximately 1,000 EPO employees went to the Danish consulate

"One of the links points to a TechRights article," he wrote, "and there are a couple of other recent TechRights article I find interesting (which does not mean a wholesale endorsement): this one on the rumor that the EPO's recently-hired Director of Internal Communications has "resigned" and this one on (so far unproven) allegations against a vice president of the EPO.

"The de facto suspension of a member of a board of appeal (i.e., an EPO-internal judge) that has drawn much criticism from judges and lawyers was, according to French financial daily Les Echos, due to whatever the suspended judge said about that vice president, Mr. Željko Topić."

We don't know what he said or wrote, but it reflects rather badly on the atmosphere at the EPO.

"On the one hand," Müller explains, "I can understand that the EPO leadership is increasingly nervous."

"The Administrative Council has been part of the problem, not part of the solution," he added.

That's for sure.

Müller's post adds this link that we missed. Merpel refers to herself (as usual) as a third person:

Merpel posted a copy of Sir Robin Jacob's letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office earlier in January, on his request. The letter protested the treatment of a member of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, and reiterated the importance of the judicial independence of the Boards of Appeal.

The text of the response letter has little substance:

Dear all,

In relation to the letter sent by Professor Sir Robin Jacob to Mr. Kongstad, VP1 asked to share with you the following remarks:

Sir Jacob 1) is not aware of all facts 2) is not aware of what the decision of the president was (office ban) 3) does not understand that the AC took the decision based on facts! 4) does not understand that this case has nothing to do with the independence of the Boards! 5) and nevertheless writes this letter!

Best regards,

How vague. Basically they just mock the intelligence of Professor Sir Robin Jacob and tell him something along the lines of "keep out!" (notice all the exclamation marks). These are the hallmarks of a secretive and unprofessional management. One would not expect this type of arrogance from a corporation, let alone from so-called 'public servants'. ⬆