EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

11.18.15

Meltdown at the EPO, Massive Staff Protests This Afternoon

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Photos via Florian Müller [1, 2]

EPO protest

EPO protest

Summary: Unrest at the EPO is reaching what seems like unprecedented levels and the EPO’s management, instead of recognising these issues, prepares for additional repressions

THE EPO’s management just doesn’t get it, does it? The harder it cracks down on staff, the more “blowback” it will suffer (not a reference to the events in Hanover but the CIA term).

As we noted earlier today, staff protests were set to take place and based on photographs these were massive, despite the short preparation time (given enough notice, the EPO's management intimidates protesters and manipulates them too).

“Battistelli has successfully destroyed the EPO. Congratulations.”
      –Anonymous
Merpel at IP Kat is disturbed by a torrent of mails and she wrote that she “has been reading, with some alarm, the emails that have been reaching her with increasing frequency over the past couple of days with regard to some recent developments at the European Patent Office (EPO).”

We are particularly interested in anonymous comments posted in response to this short blog post. One such comment shows that the notorious I.U., or the Stasi which may be the cause of some suicides (its tactics were the subject of a recent series [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], is hiring (warning: direct link to epo.org so tracking is possible). This means that either someone has resigned or they’re expanding the 'gestapo' (internal name or joke).

What the EPO needs is new management because the ‘low’ level staff (i.e. the most technically-qualified staff, not a bunch of bulldogs) cannot co-exist with Battistelli and its ilk anymore. These protests are a living testament and this is far from the first such outcry from employees. To quote some noteworthy comments from IP Kat:

Some weeks ago, the EPO Central staff Committee (hereafter CSC) published on its intranet site a document “Questions on the European Patent Office – a discussion paper”
This document presents 23 questions based on cases which all have a background in real life. I suppose that Merpel will get soon (or later) a copy of this document.
Personally I like the question 13:

The entrusted member has placed a report in the internal post to be sent to the applicant. After reading through the report, the superior, known as the Director, is of the opinion that the arguments presented therein are incorrect because the closest prior art is document D1 and not – as stated in the report – document D2. He asks the entrusted member to revise the report accordingly.
a) What is the legal position?
b) When and how does the public find out about this occurrence?

Continuation:
The entrusted member then consults with the other members of the Examining Division. Following this consultation, the Examining Division decides that the report should be sent out unchanged. The Director refuses to approve the report for sending out to the applicant. Instead, he instructs the entrusted member in writing to revise the report in accordance with his stipulation (D1 instead of D2 as closest prior art) and to sign it in the name of the entrusted member. The entrusted member fears a disciplinary penalty and revises the report as requested, but does not sign off on it.
The Director approves the revised report for sending out. The report is provided with the authentications of the Examining Division and of the entrusted member and is sent to the applicant as a report pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC.
c) What is the legal position?
d) When and how does the public/the applicant find out about this occurrence?
e) What options do the members of the Examining Division have for defending themselves against the Director’s actions, if desired?

Variation:
The Examining Division would like to place its decision regarding the originally compiled report and the written instruction of the Director to the entrusted member in the electronic file as an internal file note that is excluded from public inspection of the files. The Director issues an instruction that this must not be done, and so no one plucks up the courage to place the file note in the electronic file.
f) How does the public/the applicant find out about this occurrence?

The CSC document doesn´t indicate if the director is a DG1 director in direct contact with the ten major applicants.

If anyone can send us “Questions on the European Patent Office – a discussion paper”, that would be enormously helpful. These matters probably merit a public — not just private — discussion. With sensible redactions anonymity can be assured.

Here is another comment:

To fair play : this looks like a batant violation of the EPC;
What would happen if the BoA would have to deal with such a case (and some little birdy would tell them ?

A similar comment states:

The fathers of the EPC envisaged that EPO will be run by reasonable peaple who have interest in everything other than profit. To ensure this the fathers of the EPC provided for that the budget of the EPO must be ballanced. How naive of them!

Here is how the EPO’s management tries to ‘soften’ its actions:

Three members of the Staff Committee are suspended and this splendid piece of literature is published:

“Each staff member deserves to benefit from the duty of care of the Office
The EPO is deeply grateful for the hard work, commitment and loyalty of its 7,000 strong workforce who
have helped make us the leading IP office in the world for both quality of patents issued and the level of
service offered.
Unfortunately, the EPO has recently uncovered instances of anti-social and unlawful misconduct
concerning few employees. These matters are being investigated and dealt with according to a set of
publicly available mles, designed to ensure the fair treatment and protection of employees (Code of
Conduct; Circular 342).
In some cases, those under investigation have attempted to disrupt this proper process through the
making of false allegations and personal attacks against EPO colleagues. Such conduct constitutes a
breach of both our Service Regulations and our Public Service Values.
The EPO – like any other responsible employer – will not tolerate any form of harassment by any of its
employees, regardless of their status, against their colleagues and is taking these matters very seriously
Each staff member deserves to benefit from the duty of care of the Office. It is for this reason that
disciplinary procedures are being launched.
The Office is convinced that these incidents will not overshadow our common good: our reputation of
excellence due to the dedication of the staff. Together. we can continue to make the EPO the successful
organisation to which we are proud to belong.”

It’s so outrageous that I am missing words … and NO I am not anymore proud to belong to this organisation which apparently only serves to nurse the egomania of a psychotic and his acolytes.

This short comment says it all really:

Battistelli has successfully destroyed the EPO. Congratulations.

Finally, we agree with the following comment:

What else must happen before the EPO host countries (Germany, Holland) finally take action to stop these people?
Shame on them!

As we stated over an hour ago, failure to take action may result in more (but still preventable) suicides.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 17/8/2019: Unigine 2.9 and Git 2.23

    Links for the day



  2. Computer-Generated Patent Applications Show That Patents and Innovations Are Very Different Things

    The 'cheapening' of the concept of 'inventor' (or 'invention') undermines the whole foundation/basis of the patent system and deep inside patent law firms know it



  3. Concerns About IBM's Commitment to OpenSource.com After the Fall of Linux.com and Linux Journal

    The Web site OpenSource.com is over two decades old; in its current form it's about a decade old and it contains plenty of good articles, but will IBM think so too and, if so, will investment in the site carry on?



  4. Electronic Frontier Foundation Makes a Mistake by Giving Award to Microsoft Surveillance Person

    At age 30 (almost) the Electronic Frontier Foundation still campaigns for privacy; so why does it grant awards to enemies of privacy?



  5. Caturdays and Sundays at Techrights Will Get Busier

    Our plan to spend the weekends writing more articles about Software Freedom; it seems like a high-priority issue



  6. Why Techrights Doesn't Do Social Control Media

    Being managed and censored by platform owners (sometimes their shareholders) isn’t an alluring proposition when a site challenges conformist norms and the status quo; Techrights belongs in a platform of its own



  7. Patent Prosecution Highways and Examination Highways Are Dooming the EPO

    Speed is not a measure of quality; but today's EPO is just trying to get as much money as possible, as fast as possible (before the whole thing implodes)



  8. Software Patents Won't Come Back Just Because They're (Re)Framed/Branded as "HEY HI" (AI)

    The pattern we've been observing in recent years is, patent applicants and law firms simply rewrite applications to make these seem patent-eligible on the surface (owing to deliberate deception) and patent offices facilitate these loopholes in order to fake 'growth'



  9. IP Kat Pays the Price for Being a Megaphone of Team UPC

    The typical or the usual suspects speak out about the so-called 'prospects' (with delusions of inevitability) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, neglecting to account for their own longterm credibility



  10. Links 17/8/2019: Wine 4.14 is Out, Debian Celebrates 26 years

    Links for the day



  11. Nothing Says 'New' Microsoft Like Microsoft Component Firmware Update (More Hardware Lock-in)

    Vicious old Microsoft is still trying to make life very hard for GNU/Linux, especially in the OEM channel/s, but we're somehow supposed to think that "Microsoft loves Linux"



  12. Bill Gates and His Special Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein Still Stirring Speculations

    Love of the "children" has long been a controversial subject for Microsoft; can Bill Gates and his connections to Jeffrey Epstein unearth some unsavoury secrets?



  13. Links 16/8/2019: Kdevops and QEMU 4.1

    Links for the day



  14. The EPO's War on the Convention on the Grant of European Patents 2000 (EPC 2000), Not Just Brexit, Kills the Unitary Patent (UP/UPC) and Dooms Justice

    Team UPC continues to ignore the utter failures that have led to lawlessness at the EPO, attributing the demise of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to Brexit alone and pretending that it's not even a problem



  15. Links 15/8/2019: GNOME's Birthday, LLVM 9.0 RC2

    Links for the day



  16. 'Foundation' Hype Spreads in China

    Nonprofits seem to have become more of a business loophole than a charitable endeavour; the problem is, this erodes confidence in legitimate Free software and good causes



  17. Links Are Not Endorsements

    If the only alternative is to say nothing and link to nothing, then we have a problem; a lot of people still assume that because someone links to something it therefore implies agreement and consent



  18. The Myth of 'Professionalism'

    Perception of professionalism, a vehicle or a motivation for making Linux more 'corporate-friendly' (i.e. owned by corporations), is a growing threat to Software Freedom inside Linux, as well as freedom of speech and many other things



  19. Links 14/8/2019: Best Chromebooks, EPEL 8.0, LibreOffice 6.2.6

    Links for the day



  20. Being in Favour of Free/Libre Open Source Software Means Rejecting Software Patents

    Those who believe in Software Freedom cannot at the same time believe that software patents are desirable; we've sadly come to a point where many companies that dominate so-called 'Open Source' groups actively lobby for such patents, in effect betraying the community they claim to be a part of



  21. Links 14/8/2019: Apache Evaluated, HardenedBSD Has New Release

    Links for the day



  22. Planet Python is Being Overrun by Microsoft, Just Like PyCon and Python in General

    Microsoft is perturbing the Free/Open Source software (FOSS) world from the inside, promoting Microsoft's most malicious proprietary software from within that world while taking positions of power in powerful FOSS projects



  23. Coming Soon: The Innards of the Eric Lundgren Case That Microsoft is Desperate to Hide or Spin (by Defaming Lundgren)

    Microsoft is rather stressed about Eric Lundgren coming out of prison and telling how Microsoft put him there; right now Microsoft is mostly name-calling while seeking to control public dialogues



  24. Wrong Person in Charge of the Linux Foundation (and in Charge of Linus Torvalds)

    There are several glaring issues when it comes to the leadership of Linux's steward; for one thing, it lacks actual background in... Linux



  25. 2019 Tech Glossary

    This clavis refers to what the de facto definition may be, based on how (and when) media uses the words nowadays



  26. The Silence of the Media Lamb

    There are reasons that are perfectly legitimate to criticise media which is unable and more so unwilling to cover particular scandals for fear that coverage can be detrimental to the media's owners and sponsors



  27. LINUX.COM Managed by Apple’s MacOS Users, Open Source Managed and Covered by People Who Reject Open Source

    The narratives are being hijacked; people who we're supposed to assume speak for Linux and for Open Source support neither of these things; they're only in it for the money



  28. The Linux Foundation's Open Source Summit is a Proprietary Software Marketing Venue

    The distortion of the term Open Source and promotion of proprietary software such as GitHub shows that the foundation called after “Linux” is actually more of a front group of hostile corporations — large brands and rich people to whom Open Source represents a threat that needs to be controlled



  29. Links 13/8/2019: Mir 1.4 Released, Qt PDF Discussed

    Links for the day



  30. Links 13/8/2019: KDevelop 5.4.1 and DragonFly 5.6.2 Released

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts