06.02.16

Closer Look at Players in Battistelli’s Information War: Part III (Buying the Media, Manufacturing ‘Studies’ With Secret Contracts)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lobbying the public and representatives by paying private firms to say what the President wishes to say and paying journalists to repeat that

Exxon knew
The high cost/toll of an unscientific business-minded Republican boss: Benoît Battistelli uses the same tactics as oil giants in order to shed doubt/cast uncertainty on established facts, usually by paying people to misleading the public and public officials, thereby perpetuating damage and misery while severely damaging the reputation of the traditionally-scientific Office over the long run

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s model of propaganda is illustrated using details about many different contracts which he signs not only with PR firms but also with media companies and so-called ‘research’ firms (with financial strings attached)

THIS post is based on the two documents appended at the bottom. They may seem rather banal (based on templates), but at a later stage we are going to provide some crucial context. These are tenders for propaganda, which the EPO is now internationally renowned for (if not notorious for). The EPO even gives contracts to companies well outside Europe for these malicious purposes and perceived needs (waste). In part one we gave an example from the UK and in part two from the US. Spot the disturbing pattern here. The EPO is international, it is not European. It only has “European” in its name and the staff is European.

“The EPO is international, it is not European. It only has “European” in its name and the staff is European.”The EPO likes to spread fancy infographics and videos about so-called ‘results’ that are not even accurate a measurement of EPO performance, unless one adopts a neoliberal approach/yardstick and cooks the books [1, 2, 3].

EPO and IAM with their marriage of convenience now pretend that this dubious thing which they call a 'survey' demonstrates quality at the EPO and earlier today the EPO released a white-washing piece about it (warning: epo.org link), citing the old partners (which the EPO's PR firm pays), even quoting the liar in chief: “”Quality is our top strategic priority,” said EPO President Benoît Battistelli. “We have been ISO 9001 certified for our granting process since 2014 and this was extended to cover the whole patent process last year. Users’ affirmation of our high quality is a credit to the EPO staff who increased their production by 14% in 2015, at a time when applications rose a further 4.8%, all without compromising quality. These good results inspire us to continue improving the quality of our services”” (repetition of dubious claims if not outright lies).

Remember that under Benoît Battistelli’s regime the EPO literally paying media organisations like CNN huge amounts of money. The EPO not only lies a lot; it also wastes extraordinary amounts of money paying the media to repeat the lies and paying for bogus ‘studies’, ghostwritten ‘articles’, etc. Scandalous it sure is, but where’s accountability at Eponia?

“The EPO not only lies a lot; it also wastes extraordinary amounts of money paying the media to repeat the lies and paying for bogus ‘studies’, ghostwritten ‘articles’, etc. Scandalous it sure is, but where’s accountability at Eponia?”In the documents below we see some details about secret contracts (which we have not seen yet, so leaks are more than welcome). Well, the first says “Purpose of the contract” is “Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office” whereas the second says “Provision of Consultancy services for e-Business Research and Barometer Studies of the EPO Online Services department, consisting of mutual design of questionnaires, interviewing EPO clients in several countries and followed by analysis and reporting of results.”

The best analogy we found for this is the Gates Foundation (see our Wiki about it). For a number of years it has been conducting so-called ‘studies’ for lobbying purposes that help Bill (and his wife) profit better from his corporate investments and drown out opposing views in platforms like panels, literature, etc. We have written many articles that provide hundreds of examples of this. The EPO is a lot like Bill Gates in the sense that both bribe media companies to ‘plant’ their own ‘articles’ which are nothing less than glamour pieces. People are not used to seeing articles critical of Bill Gates because he pays for so many puff pieces that it drowns out the signal (investigative journalism). Last time we checked (we used to track this closely) Bill Gates was spending $300,000,000 per year essentially bribing the media. They call it “advocacy” or “communications”, but in practice it means passing crates of cash to media organisations, whereupon they become mouthpieces like Battistelli’s “media partners”. Our readers are wise enough to know that lot of media companies are stenography or PR (puff pieces) for sale. That in fact is their business model (if they survive). Media companies need to ‘buffer’ all the ads and puff/planted pieces with legitimate (costly) journalism to hide the real agenda/business model, but it’s when people like Battistelli throw a million bucks at CNN that they really hear the register go “ka-ching”.

Regarding this so-called ‘survey’ or two from Battistelli (there are numerous in the pipeline), putting aside corrupt media coverage this one new comment said: “You’re right, the results of the staff survey are truly appalling. The indicators of stress are almost off the scale. I wonder if the “social study” conducted by the EPO management will find any similar causes for concern?

“Our readers are wise enough to know that lot of media companies are stenography or PR (puff pieces) for sale.”“Without wishing to diminish the importance of the study on highlighting the current plight of EPO employees, I could not help but notice a few numbers that will (or at least should) give patent practitioners cause for alarm.

“In particular, it appears that only 30% of respondents believed that they were provided with the necessary time to perform their job correctly. This means that 7 out of every 10 respondents (66% of whom were from DG1) believe that they are not – at least not always – performing their job to the level that they would like. Combined with the multiple indicators pointing to concerns about a decrease in quality (e.g. over 90% of respondents believed that the importance according to quality has diminished within the last 3 years), this makes it pretty clear that practitioners are now dealing with an EPO that is marching swiftly down the road to a “quick and dirty” examination standard.

“All very well, but is that what the users want? I very much doubt it – especially as examination fees have certainly not decreased in recent years.”

This was said in relation to this new survey, which is going to help refute Battistelli’s propaganda in the making (see the documents below).

“Remember that the EPO’s President is now trying to crush the Boards of Appeal altogether, in essence assuring there is even less quality control.”Examination quality at the EPO without a doubt declined, based on the rushing of processes for which we have hard evidence (including some that the EPO threated me to take offline). It now sounds like the EPO is promoting software patents in the US or trying to ‘import’ them under the “ICT” banner (again), based on today’s tweet. Marks & Clerk (software patents pushers) published this new piece today which suggests that another controversial type of patents, namely patents on life, is still on the EPO’s agenda. To quote: “The EPO Board of Appeal and UK High Court have recently issued conflicting decisions on the validity of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals’ European Patent for the VelocImmune therapeutic antibody development platform.”

Remember that the EPO’s President is now trying to crush the Boards of Appeal altogether, in essence assuring there is even less quality control.


 
Services – 422718-2015

02/12/2015 S233 European Patent Office – Services – Contract notice – Open procedure
Germany-Munich: Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office

2015/S 233-422718

1. Awarding Authority:

The European Patent Organisation (EPO), acting through the European Patent Office: Headquarters, Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1, 80469 Munich, Germany, Postal address: EPO, 80298 Munich, Germany.
The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation set up pursuant to the European Patent Convention which entered into force in 1977. At present it has 38 Member States (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom). The executive body of the EPO is the European Patent Office which is charged with the search and examination of European patent applications and granting European patents. It employs approximately 6 700 staff at EPO headquarters in Munich, a branch at The Hague/Rijswijk (NL) and sub-offices in Berlin and Vienna (the number of Member States and staff members indicated may change).

2. Award procedure:

Open invitation to tender with discretionary award of contract.

3. Description of the contract:
(a) Purpose of the contract:
Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office.
(b) Division into lots:
Not applicable.
(c) Any deposits and guarantees required:
Not applicable.
(d) Main terms concerning payment:
Within 30 days after acceptance.
(e) Qualifications required by law:
Not applicable.

4. Place and period of performance:
(a) Place at which the contract is to be performed:
Headquarters as in 1,
Branch office in Rijswijk,
Sub-office in Vienna and
Sub-office in Berlin.
(b) Duration of contract:
The Contract shall be provided for a period of 3 years with a right for the EPO to extend this duration twice by 1 year each.

5. Variants:
Not permitted.
6. Requests for the Procurement Documents and receipt of bids:
(a) Name and address of department from which the Procurement Documents and clarification of the Procurement Documents
may be requested:
European Patent Office
Central Procurement 482, Tender No.1982
Patentlaan 2, 2288 EE Rijswijk (ZH)
The Netherlands
E-Mail: mntenderclarifications@epo.org
Procurement Documents will be forwarded upon written or E-Mail request.
(b) Final date for receipt by the EPO of requests for the Procurement Documents:
- 17.12.2015 (12:00), CET
(c) Final date for receipt by the EPO for requests for clarification:
- 5.1.2016 (12:00), CET
- Questions must be submitted by e-mail.
(d) Final date for receipt of bids/number of copies to be sent:
- 25.1.2016 (12:00), CET
- Bids must be submitted in original.
(e) Address to which the requests for clarification and bids must be sent:
As in point 6(a).
Please submit bids by post only and not by fax or E-Mail. Bids submitted by fax or E-Mail will be excluded.
(f) Language or languages in which requests for clarification and bids must be drawn up:
English.
The Procurement Documents will be available in English.

7. Criteria for assessing bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract:
Bids from bidders who do not fulfil the selection criteria stated in the Procurement Documents and/or whose circumstances are such as to seriously call into question their financial and professional reliability (see Article 2 of the General Conditions of Tender, available under www.epo.org) will not be considered for contract award.
Bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract will be assessed on the basis of the information and evidence submitted in reply to the questionnaire in Annex 1 to the General Conditions of Tender and any additional questionnaire(s) included in the Procurement Documents.
8. Period during which the bidder is bound by his bid:
6 months following the final date for receipt of bids indicated in point 6(d).
9. Criteria for the award of contract:
The contract shall be awarded to the bidder whose bid is preferred regarding the bidder’s ability to meet the EPO’s needs and
requirements which will be measured by:
• technical aspects (60 %)
• price (40 %)
10. Other information:

Contract award is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2016.

 


 
Services – 106290-2016

30/03/2016 S62 European Patent Office – Services – Contract notice – Open procedure
Germany-Munich: Provision of Consultancy services for e-Business Research and Barometer Studies of the EPO Online Services department
2016/S 062-106290
PUBLISHED NOTICE
OPEN INVITATION TO TENDER 1978

1. Awarding Authority:

The European Patent Organisation (EPO), acting through the European Patent Office: Headquarters, Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1, 80469 Munich, Germany, Postal address: EPO, 80298 Munich, Germany.
The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation set up pursuant to the European Patent Convention which entered into force in 1977. At present it has 38 Member States (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom). The executive body of the EPO is the European Patent Office which is charged with the search and examination of European patent applications and granting European patents. It employs approximately 6 700 staff at EPO headquarters in Munich, a branch at The Hague/Rijswijk (NL) and sub-offices in Berlin and Vienna (the number of Member States and staff members indicated may change).
2. Award procedure:
Open invitation to tender with discretionary award of contract (Framework Agreement).

3. Description of the contract:

(a) Purpose of the contract:
Provision of Consultancy services for e-Business Research and Barometer Studies of the EPO Online Services department,
consisting of mutual design of questionnaires, interviewing EPO clients in several countries and followed by analysis and
reporting of results.
(b) Division into lots:
Not applicable.
(c) Any deposits and guarantees required:
Not applicable.
(d) Main terms concerning payment:
Invoices are to be paid by the EPO within 30 days of acceptance of the report for individual tranches.
(e) Qualifications required by law:
Not applicable.
4. Place and period of performance:
(a) Place at which the contract is to be performed:
• Primarily off-site: further described in the procurement documents.
• Liaison and reporting activities, if requested: The EPO Branch office in Rijswijk.
(b) Duration of contract or time limit for delivery or completion of services/work: The contract has a duration of 3 years with the possibility of 2 extensions of 1 year each. Individual tranches of work shall have expected completion dates defined in the associated commission form. The final report shall be delivered electronically.

5. Variants:
Proposals for variants, the effect of which would be to reduce significantly the rights and safeguards of the EPO, are not allowed.
6. Requests for the Procurement Documents and receipt of bids:
(a) Name and address of department from which the Procurement Documents and clarification of the Procurement Documents may be requested:
European Patent Office
Central Procurement the Hague 4.8 (Tender 1978)
Patentlaan 2, 2288 EE Rijswijk, the Netherlands
P.O. Box 5818, 2280 HV Rijswijk, the Netherlands
e-mail: dhtenderclarifications@epo.org
Procurement Documents will be forwarded upon written or E-Mail request.
(b) Final date for receipt by the EPO of requests for the Procurement Documents:
- 13.4.2016 (12:00), CET
(c) Final date for receipt by the EPO of requests for clarification:
- 13.5.2016 (12:00), CET
- Questions must be submitted by letter or E-Mail.
(d) Final date for receipt of bids/number of copies to be sent:
- 3.6.2016 (12:00), CET
- The bid must be submitted in 1 original, to be marked as such, including the Price Offer Form, 1 paper copy without the Price Offer Form, and 1 copy in electronic form (i.e. USB or CD-ROM) without the Price offer Form as searchable PDF.
(e) Address to which the requests for clarification and bids must be sent:
As in point 6(a).
Please submit bids by post only and not by fax or E-Mail. Bids submitted by fax or E-Mail will be excluded.
(f) Language or languages in which requests for clarification and bids must be drawn up:
English.
The Procurement Documents will be available in English only.
7. Legal form of the grouping in the event of a joint bid:
If several bidders submit a joint bid, they must be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the obligations under the contract. A declaration to this effect, duly signed by all members of the grouping and appointing a representative that is authorised to act on behalf of all members, must be submitted with the bid.
8. Criteria for assessing bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract:
Bids from bidders who do not fulfil the selection criteria stated in the Procurement Documents and/or whose circumstances are
such as to seriously call into question their financial and professional reliability (see Article 2 of the General Conditions of
Tender, available under www.epo.org) will not be considered for contract award.
Bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract will be assessed on the basis of the information and evidence
submitted in reply to the questionnaire in Annex 1 to the General Conditions of Tender and any additional questionnaire(s)
included in the Procurement Documents.

9. Period during which the bidder is bound by his bid:

6 months following the final date for receipt of bids indicated in point 6(d).
10. Criteria for the award of contract:
The award criteria and their relative weighting are as follows:
Technical aspects: 60 %
Financial aspects: 40 %
The evaluation of the technical aspects will be based on the bidders’ responses to the Technical Conditions through their answers to the questionnaire ‘Award criteria’.

11. Other information:
Contract award is expected to take place in the second quarter of 2016.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

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. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 20, 2021



  2. Links 21/1/2021: Google Tightens the Screws on Chromium, VideoLAN VLC 3.0.12

    Links for the day



  3. IBM Panics and Resorts to 'Customer Retention' Tactics With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)

    IBM 'frees' RHEL but with limitations that can restrict growth of small companies (or subject them to financial barriers, originally unforeseen)



  4. Recent Techrights Articles About President Joe Biden

    Instead of writing yet more stuff about the latest US president, let's look back at what we wrote in recent weeks/months



  5. Links 20/1/2021: LibreOffice 7.1 RC2 and the RHEL Contingency

    Links for the day



  6. InteLeaks – Part XXIII: Intel Paying for Bogus 'Research' 'Insights' Which Merely Seek to Justify Outsourcing to Microsoft and Imposing Microsoft's Proprietary Software on Free Software Developers

    Intel's preference for Microsoft monopoly (an imposed/top-down decision) was seemingly certified by so-called 'consultants' and 'analysts' from the outside rather than the inside, basically manufacturing a false perception of consent after managers had already made up their minds



  7. Suppressed Facts of the Free Software Movement and Its Community of Volunteers – Part V: How FSF Secrecy Ended Up Insulting People, Alienating Trans Developers

    Having just uploaded this introductory video, we delve into the backstory or the real reason the FSF sank into somewhat of a crisis with the trans community almost half a decade ago



  8. InteLeaks – Part XXII: Bubbles and Buzzwords, No Substance at Intel's Internet of Things (IoT) Group (IOTG)

    The video above is continuation of the previous part about a document full of superficial buzzwords (not technical jargon anywhere), in effect recommending to managers that they blindly follow trends and cargo cults (such as Clown Computing) and not what’s most suitable for technical excellence



  9. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 19, 2021



  10. Links 20/1/2021: WireGuard for pfSense and New US President

    Links for the day



  11. Links 19/1/2021: Krita 4.4.2 Released and JingOS Hype

    Links for the day



  12. Team UPC Keeps Pretending That UPCA Can Still be Resurrected (Even Without the UK, Which is Strictly a Requirement)

    The latest distortion of facts regarding the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (UPCA) as seen from the lens of people who seek to profit from such distortion



  13. 'Ethical Source' is Not Ethical and Not a Movement But a Misguided Self-Serving PR Stunt

    Something which is neither enforceable nor ethical is being promoted by profoundly unethical media in the pockets of large corporations



  14. InteLeaks – Part XXI: Intel Seeking Advice From a Bunch of Clowns (Harbor 'Research')

    A firm called Harbor 'Research' is making dubious recommendations to Intel; as shown in the above video, there's also an obsession with buzzwords (typically suggestive of a lack of technical grasp/understanding)



  15. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 18, 2021

    IRC logs for Monday, January 18, 2021



  16. The US Election Was Not Rigged, But the Nomination Process Was (Undermined to Maintain Control by Oligarchy)

    Cheating/driving the left out of the Democratic Party seems like a longstanding tradition and we know who stands to gain from it; moreover, problems remain in the voting process because it's controlled by secret code of companies like Microsoft (in spite of the openwashing)



  17. InteLeaks – Part XX: Redacted (for Names Only) Release of Intel File About Developer eXperience (DX) Meddling in GNU/Linux

    Today (or tonight) we release the first 'phase' of InteLeaks in a sensibly redacted form; coming up next is a surprise from Team Microsoft



  18. Sites in Bed With the EPO and UPC 'Covering' the 'News' Without Mentioning Any of the Overt Abuses

    It is rather sad that blogs like IP Kat have turned into proponents of abusive EPO management and Team UPC increasingly resorts to lying using pseudonyms (to avert criticism and accountability); much of the rebuttal or response that’s hinged on reality/facts can only be found in comments, which are still subjected to a face-saving moderation process (conducted by Team UPC)



  19. Suppressed Facts of the Free Software Movement and Its Community of Volunteers – Part IV: Stories From the Depths of the Free Software Foundation (FSF)

    To reduce or alleviate suspicions and a potential of mistrust the FSF needs to become more transparent and liberate information (such as the real reason Bradley Kuhn left, as noted in the previous part)



  20. Links 18/1/2021: GNU Radio 3.9, Wikipedia at 20

    Links for the day



  21. InteLeaks – Part XIX: Intel's Web 'Experts' Seen as Microsoft Champions Dealing With the Platform Microsoft is Looking to Destroy

    Things aren't rosy at Intel because the hires aren't suitable for the job of documenting and/or presenting GNU/Linux-centric products (whose target audience is Free software developers)



  22. Adding Images as Characters to the Daily Bulletins of Techrights

    Our daily bulletins now have inside them coarse graphics, depicted using characters alone, and the tool used to generate them announced a new release earlier today; we showcase some of its features (in a new video)



  23. Links 18/1/2021: Weekly Summaries and Linux 5.11 RC4

    Links for the day



  24. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 17, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 17, 2021



  25. The Oligarchs' Parties Will Never Choose the Side of Software Freedom Because Free Software Cannot Bribe Officials

    The tough reality is that next week's (or this coming week's, depending on what Sunday counts as) inauguration ceremony is partly symbolic as all the same and important issues remain largely untouched, for corporations control almost everything of significance



  26. COVID-19 Has Actually Helped Software Freedom Due to Financial and 'Spare Time' Factors

    Developers and users are increasingly exploring what the Free software world has to offer; this is actually measurable and it contradicts claims to the contrary



  27. Future Plans and Using Videos to Complement Text

    Remarks on recent and impending site changes; We are not replacing text with video, we're just trying to enhance the presentation a bit, especially where visuals help make a point or where browsing through Web sites (or leaks) is more suitable than static, linear presentation



  28. InteLeaks – Part XVIII: Intel Does Not Know How to Properly Do Research and It Seems Apparent Unscientific Methods Are Used to Justify Poor Documentation

    There appears to be a severe crisis at Intel; they cannot recruit scientists (or those whom they recruited are walking away) and as a result the company produces bad products with poor documentation (or highly defective chipsets that top-notch marketing cannot compensate for); in this video we walk through some examples of how studies are being conducted (as already noted in Part XVII)



  29. Suppressed Facts of the Free Software Movement and Its Community of Volunteers – Part III: The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Seems More Like a Victim of Destabilisation Campaigns

    The Free Software Foundation (FSF), which turns 36 later this year, is looking to raise money that helps support the GNU Project, soon 38 years old and likely the most important Free software project to exist (ever)



  30. Links 17/1/2021: EasyOS on Raspberry Pi and GNU libsigsegv 2.13

    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