Source: Archivo General Histórico del (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile)
THE EPO is not a European body but an international organisation above European law -- one that may even break international law as long as it feels immune enough from local law enforcement (whatever the locality might be). Over the years I was approached by whistleblowers who had suffered reprisal for purely political reasons. One of them was from the UN. I saw in her a lot of what I see now in Elizabeth Hardon. She angered the 'wrong' people by daring to help expose their abuses. She was in for a surprise. The legal system was not present (except show trials); there was lawlessness everyone and it took a considerable toll on physical health, mental health, etc. Public perception around international organisations needs to change because these organisations are often assumed to be benevolent by virtue of having no borders or loyalty to one particular nation/ethnicity/religion. What many people easily overlook is the inclination of such organisations to serve power, or class. This can mean lenience or favouritism for large international corporations, too. Plutocrats live a life void of fear from the courts and they travel without borders (many have their private jets). They exercise power and coerce international bodies, where the currency (not a commodity) is power. That's just an essential point that EPO employees sooner or later learn from experience. The I.L.O. is far too slow (and thus weak) to protect them. Protecting the weak from the powerful isn't quite the goal because such systems were put in place by the powerful. Those who speak truth to power should watch out, or else they're end up hiding in some embassy in London or somewhere in Moscow.
"It's hard to imagine that someone like Augusto Pinochet would even want to be associated with an autocrat like Battistelli."The madman who now runs the EPO, Mr. Battistelli, has just been mentioned by the press in Korea, which was used as an excuse to provide inexcusable favouritism to large multinational corporations such as Microsoft. We've heard that south America is next on Battistelli's itinerary. Eduardo, who provides Techrights and equips us with all the Spanish translations, originally came from south America and he is not happy about Battistelli going there. "Once you mentioned," he said, that "this guy will go to Chile to visit Augusto Pinochet's grave."
Well, all we know is that Battistelli will go to south America, based on an online source. It's hard to imagine that someone like Augusto Pinochet would even want to be associated with an autocrat like Battistelli.
"I did remember something my great uncle regarding a military dictator," Eduardo added, "who expropriated a lot of lands to our family. I will apply it to Pinoccio Battistelli: 'I hope when he dies they will make a coffin in the shape of a (soccer) football. So we can take it to the cemetery by kicking it all the way to it'" (it's a crude joke, no doubt, but a lot of people are now very angry at Battistelli, even people outside the EPO).
Last month we wrote about James Nurton giving Battistelli a platform at a patent lawyers' site. He said that Battistelli had answered all the questions passed to him, but he excluded the question that I asked his publisher to ask. Nice bias by omission there. The interview that James Nurton did with Battistelli (probably subjected to strict rules and conditions imposed by the aggressive PR team) was filled with UPC promotion, despite the fact that the UPC is not yet a reality and might never become a reality. Here is Nurton again with "Some practical questions about the UPC" (more like talking points in favour of the UPC and self-fulfilling prophecies).
“He [Battistelli] may seem superficially client friendly and indeed a lot of pressure is exerted on the examiners and board members not to refuse applications or otherwise bite the hand that feeds them.”
--Anonymous"As the clock ticks down to the launch of the Unified Patent Court," Nurton wrote, "interest is increasing in how the yet-to-be-appointed judges will handle cases, who they will be and what impact the UPC will have in Europe" (people are already applying for such jobs in the UK, as we recently learned, even though the large majority of such jobs would be in Germany).
Nurton's piece is totally void of any criticism of the UPC. He is speaking to patent lawyers, not Europeans (more than 99% of them are not patent lawyers) to whom the UPC brings nothing but harm.
As one comment put it today, "most attorneys are not at all in favour of the Unitary Patent." To quote this in context (the EPO scandals):
Somebody further up asked why Merpel in particular and attorneys in general should worry about a case which appears to deal with disgruntled trade union members?
Well, do you really think somebody who respects his employees so little and treats them with such a contempt for legality would be anymore lawabiding when it comes to his clients.
He [Battistelli] may seem superficially client friendly and indeed a lot of pressure is exerted on the examiners and board members not to refuse applications or otherwise bite the hand that feeds them. But indeed, most attorneys are not at all in favour of the Unitary Patent. They won't be treated any better when it turns out there is a conflict of interest between huge overseas multinationals and local economic entities.
“The government intends to bring forward legislation to implement the Unified Patent Court Agreement in January 2016.”
--UK-IPOIs the British UK-IPO becoming more like a vassal of the Battistelli regime? Seems so. "Government Response to Technical Review of UPC implementing legislation published today," they wrote on Friday, having published "Secondary Legislation Implementing the Unified Patent Court".
To quote the page (not the PDFs): "This government response gives a full analysis of responses to the Technical Review and Call for Evidence and outlines the direction that government will be taking. The government intends to bring forward legislation to implement the Unified Patent Court Agreement in January 2016."
UK-IPO, says Henrion, "mentions the average legal cost for a dispute over an UPC patent will be 1M pounds" (he aptly labels this "SME killer").
He has asked UK-IPO, "what is this software exception in UK law?" He later added that "this would imply that software patents exist in the first place." They obviously should not. For all we know, the UK-IPO is not even responding. UK-IPO never responded to me. They're stonewalling. They don't care about the public and they definitely snub public voices. There was going to be an EPO protest in front of a diplomatic British office in Germany (February 2015), but the British government stepped in to intervene, along with Battistelli. The powerful politicians are revolting against scientists.
It looks like UK-IPO is preparing to surrender to the EPO some time very soon (with the UPC). Multinational corporations are getting their way rather quickly thanks to the Battistelli regime. EPO staff should know by now who Battistelli is loyal to; he has no loyalty to his staff, whom he merely views as an enemy (most of them signed a petition against the EPO's recent actions). Is Battistelli acting like a European politician or like a corporations' (clients'/applicants') lobbyist? ⬆
"He does not possess wealth; it possesses him."
--Benjamin Franklin