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

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 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. Inverting Narratives: IAM 'Magazine' Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless

    Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft's tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as "pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products") as seen in IAM almost every week these days



  2. The Sickness of the EPO – Part I: Motivation for New Series of Articles

    An introduction or prelude to a long series of upcoming posts, whose purpose is to show governance by coercion, pressure, retribution and tribalism rather than professional relationship between human beings at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  3. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

    The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself "the largest European cancer patients' umbrella organisation," fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse



  4. Links 21/2/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9.2 in Chakra GNU/Linux, pfSense 2.3.3

    Links for the day



  5. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's Wall

    Battistelli's solution to everything at the EPO is exclusion and barriers



  6. The 'New' Microsoft is Still Acting Like a Dangerous Cult in an Effort to Hijack and/or Undermine All Free/Open Source Software

    In an effort to combat any large deployment of non-Microsoft software, the company goes personal and attempts to overthrow even management that is not receptive to Microsoft's agenda



  7. PTAB Petitioned to Help Against Patent Troll InfoGation Corp., Which Goes After Linux/Android OEMs in China

    A new example of software patents against Free software, or trolls against companies that are distributing freedom-respecting software from a country where these patents are not even potent (they don't exist there)



  8. Links 20/2/2017: Linux 4.10, LineageOS Milestone

    Links for the day



  9. No, Doing Mathematical Operations on a Processor Does Not Make Algorithms Patent-Eligible

    Old and familiar tricks -- a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines -- are being peddled by Watchtroll again



  10. Paid-for UPC Proponent, IAM 'Magazine', Debunked on UPC Again

    The impact of the corrupted (by EPO money) media goes further than one might expect and even 'borrows' out-of-date news in order to promote the UPC



  11. Lack of Justice in and Around the EPO Drawing Scrutiny

    The status of the EPO as an entity above the law (in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and so on) is becoming the subject of press reports and staff is leaving in large numbers



  12. Links 19/2/2017: GParted 0.28.1, LibreOffice Donations Record

    Links for the day



  13. The EPO is Becoming an Embarrassment to Europe and a Growing Threat to the European Union

    The increasingly pathetic moves by Battistelli and the ever-declining image/status of the EPO (only 0% of polled stakeholders approve Battistelli's management) is causing damage to the reputation of the European Union, even if the EPO is not a European Union organ but an international one



  14. Patent Misconceptions Promoted by the Patent Meta-Industry

    Cherry-picking one's way into the perception of patent eligibility for software and the misguided belief that without patents there will be no innovation



  15. As the United States Shuts Its Door on Low-Quality Patents the Patent Trolls Move to Asia

    Disintegration of Intellectual Ventures (further shrinkage after losing software patents at CAFC), China's massive patent bubble, and Singapore's implicit invitation/facilitation of patent trolls (bubble economy)



  16. Links 17/2/2017: Wine 2.2, New Ubuntu LTS

    Links for the day



  17. Bad Advice From Mintz Levin and Bejin Bieneman PLC Would Have People Believe That Software Patents Are Still Worth Pursuing

    The latest examples of misleading articles which, in spite of the avalanche of software patents in the United States, continue to promote these



  18. Patents Are Not Property, They Are a Monopoly, and They Are Not Owned But Temporarily Granted

    Patent maximalism and distortion of concepts associated with patents tackled again, for terminology is being hijacked by those who turned patents into their "milking cows"



  19. SoftBank Group, New Owner of ARM, Could Potentially Become (in Part) a Patent Troll or an Aggressor Like Qualcomm

    SoftBank grabbed headlines (in the West at least) when it bought ARM, but will it soon grab headlines for going after practicing companies using a bunch of patents that it got from Inventergy, ARM, and beyond?



  20. Technicolor, Having Turned Into a Patent Troll, Attacks Android/Tizen/Linux With Patents in Europe

    Technicolor, which a lot of the media portrayed as a patent troll in previous years (especially after it had sued Apple, HTC and Samsung), is now taking action against Samsung in Europe (Paris, Dusseldorf and Mannheim)



  21. Michelle Lee is Still “in Charge” of the US Patent System

    Contrary to a malicious whispering campaign against Lee (a coup attempt, courtesy of patent maximalists who make a living from mass litigation), she is still in charge of the USPTO



  22. Our Assessment: EPO Wants a Lot of Low-Quality Patents and Low-Paid Staff With UPC (Prosecution Galore)

    The European Patent Office seems to be less interested in examination and more interested in facilitating overzealous prosecution all across Europe and beyond; The Administrative Council has shown no signs that it is interested in profound changes, except those proposed by Battistelli in the face of growing resistance from staff and from ordinary stakeholders



  23. Links 16/2/2017: HITMAN for GNU/Linux, Go 1.8

    Links for the day



  24. Yet More Complaints About the European Patent Office in the Bavarian Regional Government

    Some German politicians do care about the welfare of EPO staff, a lot more so than the EPO's management that is actively crushing this staff



  25. EPO Staff Representatives to Escalate Complaint About Severe Injustices to the EPO's Secretive Board 28

    In a new letter to President Benoît Battistelli it is made abundantly apparent -- however politely -- that Battistelli's gross abuses could further complicate things for Battistelli, who is already embroiled in a fight with his predecessor, Roland Grossenbacher



  26. New Survey Reveals That High Patent Quality, or Elimination of Bad Patents, is Desirable to Patent Holders

    A new survey from Bloomberg BNA and AIPLA reveals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which still grows in prominence, is supported by people who have themselves gotten patents (not those who are in the bureaucracy of patents and self-serving politics)



  27. Open Patent Office is Not the Solution; Ending Software Patents is the Solution

    Our remarks about the goals and methods of the newly-established Open Patent Office and what is instead needed in order to combat the menace that threatens software development



  28. New Scholarly Paper Says “UK’s Withdrawal From the EU Could Mean That the Entire (Unitary Patent) System Will Not Go Into Effect”

    A paper from academics -- not from the patent microcosm (for a change) -- provides a more sobering interpretation, suggesting quite rightly that the UPC can't happen in the UK (or in Europe), or simply not endure if some front groups such as CIPA somehow managed to bamboozle politicians into it (ratification in haste, before the facts are known)



  29. Patent Trolls Update: Rodney Gilstrap Maintains His Support for Trolls, MPEG-LA Goes Hunting in China, and Blackberry Hits Nokia

    A roundup of the latest news about patent trolls and what they are up to in the United States, Europe, and Asia



  30. Guest Post: EPO, an Idyllic Place to Work

    The true face of the EPO as explained by an insider, recalling the history that led to the negative image and toxic work atmosphere


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