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

01.15.16

How the EPO Prevented Scapegoats (‘Defendants’) in Its Mock ‘Trials’ From Actually Presenting a Defense

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Francisco Goya
The Third of May by Francisco Goya (1746–1828)

Summary: Ms Hardon’s lawyers have made it very clear that the firings are “politically motivated” as well as absurd as accusations are unfounded; “many of the “facts” presented by the Disciplinary Committee are incorrect,” they said and “charges against my client are malicious, absurd and ill-founded and should be withdrawn.”

IN a civilised society (i.e. not in the EPO) a typical trial has an accuser/plaintiff and a defended party (defendant). In Eponia, however, which is a cesspool of injustice at the very heart of Europe and Germany, there is just an accuser, who is also the jury, judge, executioner etc. Hey, why not just call this the SS?

The EPO’s lackeys of Team Battistelli, including Ms Bergot who was appointed under amazing circumstances [1, 2, 3, 4], are disregarding any opposing views as we showed here before. Now we have the following letter which says a lot more:

Re: Final Observations in Disciplinary Procedure D8/2015

Dear Ms Bergot,

The sheer number of investigations against my client (three in two years), the nature of the charges and the lack of evidence for these charges are indicative of a harassment process, not by my client but against my client. The absurdity of the charges against my client and against her colleagues of SUEPO is easily recognized by all1, as is the aim of the exercise. By pursuing such charges, the administration is diverting valuable resources from more worthwhile issues and bringing the EPO into disrepute.

The present disciplinary procedure and the preceding investigations against my client, a prominent member of the SUEPO, are clearly politically motivated. Making martyrs (i.e. disciplining staff on the basis of trumped-up charges) is never the best way to make peace. The initiation and pursuit of such charges make a mockery of the President’s claim that he is interested in social dialogue and/or recognizing the SUEPO.

In view of your active involvement at all stages of the procedure, starting with the fact that the harassment complaints were filed by yourself instead of by the alleged victims, followed by interventions on behalf of the Investigative Unit during the investigative process, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the investigation process had been completed and your attendance in person at the disciplinary hearing, the strong impression arises that you are pursuing a personal vendetta rather than justice.

The numerous procedural errors, both in the investigative process and in the following disciplinary procedure are a disgrace for an Office that is dedicated to the proper administration of law. Mistakes like entering into the substance of the matter before dealing with procedural issues such as late-filed documents (as happened during the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee) are obvious to every examiner. It is incomprehensible how a Disciplinary Committee comprising four Principal Directors, one of whom is a lawyer, can commit such errors.

_____
1 See e.g. http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2015/10/when-harassment-gains-new-meaning-epo.html,http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2015/10/epo-bids-to-save-litigating-employees.html, Decision Case number. Art. 23 1/15 of Enlarged Board of Appeal.


Moreover, many of the “facts” presented by the Disciplinary Committee are incorrect. For example, with respect to the harassment allegations the external investigators concluded that “the exact wording could not be established2”. Of the seven witnesses questioned only one (!) claimed that the wording relied on by the Disciplinary Committee was in fact used. My client strongly denies having used this wording. The Disciplinary Committee nevertheless presented that version of events as an established fact. The misrepresentation of such basic facts raises doubts about the independence and impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee.

Contrary to the allegations of the Disciplinary Committee the investigations C-62 and C-62b are not independent from each other. The Investigation Unit itself claimed to have been mandated to pursue the investigation against my client by the decision of the Administrative Council in the legal document CA/D 12/14 which indeed was the basis for the investigation against the DG3 member.

For the avoidance of doubt, my client emphatically denies having committed any misconduct. She denies in particular having distributed defamatory material about VP4, having knowledge of the alleged establishment of a technical Dark Web TOR network and other, similar means (which due to the fact of the proxy settings of the Office is impossible), having knowledge that confidential EPO material (e.g. from an ongoing DG3 case) is being distributed to third parties, having harassed or threatening other staff representatives or have behaved in an inappropriate way as she disclosed to staff the unlawful acts of the Office and the abuse of power.

The whole procedure impressively documents the legal vacuum created by the President of the Office by exposing the arbitrariness of the illegal regime under which the Office and its staff suffers. By means of the implementation of invalid or otherwise manifestly defective legal instruments such as inter alia Circular No. 342, the insufficient Data Protection Guidelines and by violating the principles due process the President of the Office has managed to create a legal system which is in clear conflict with democratic values and the rule of law.

The charges against my client are malicious, absurd and ill-founded and should be withdrawn.

On behalf of my client, I herewith request that the costs for the legal defence of my client be reimbursed in their entirety. I further request moral and/or exemplary damages for the distress caused.

With Best Regards,

Şenay Okyay
Rechtsanwältin

.cc Chairman of the Administrative Council
Dutch delegate
German delegate

_____
2 See page 5, second last paragraph of the report of Control Risks

We have more on this topic tomorrow. Please contact delegates, as we’ve just pointed out. Some of them are responsive and are increasingly worried about this sheer abuse by Team Battistelli.

The EPO is like those hawkish political parties that bomb nations without asking for consent from the public. They drop bombs and let others clean up the mess. They rarely even ask any questions later, e.g. when there is blowback. Carrying out these attacks (union-busting) on a Friday wouldn’t soften the blow if people did take action (like contacting delegates). Write to them. It will help.

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. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  2. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  3. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  4. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  5. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  6. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  7. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  8. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  9. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  10. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  11. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  12. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  13. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  14. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  15. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  16. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  17. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  18. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  19. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  20. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  21. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  22. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  23. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  24. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  25. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  26. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  27. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  28. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  29. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  30. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts