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. Links 19/4/2019: PyPy 7.1.1, LabPlot 2.6, Kipi Plugins 5.9.1 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Links 18/4/2019: Ubuntu and Derivatives Have Releases, digiKam 6.1.0, OpenSSH 8.0 and LibreOffice 6.2.3

    Links for the day



  3. Freedom is Not a Business and Those Who Make 'Business' by Giving it Away Deserve Naming

    Free software is being parceled and sold to private monopolisers; those who facilitate the process enrich themselves and pose a growing threat to freedom in general — a subject we intend to tackle in the near future



  4. Concluding the Linux Foundation (LF) “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 3)

    Conferences constructed or put together based on payments rather than merit pose a risk to the freedom of free software; we conclude our series about events set up by the largest of culprits, which profits from this erosion of freedom



  5. “Mention the War” (of Microsoft Against GNU/Linux)

    The GNU/Linux desktop (or laptops) seems to be languishing or deteriorating, making way for proprietary takeover in the form of Vista 10 and Chrome OS and “web apps” (surveillance); nobody seems too bothered — certainly not the Linux Foundation — by the fact that GNU/Linux itself is being relegated or demoted to a mere “app” on these surveillance platforms (WSL, Croûton and so on)



  6. The European Patent Office Does Not Care About the Law, Today's Management Constantly Attempts to Bypass the Law

    Many EPs (European Patents) are actually "IPs" (invalid patents); the EPO doesn't seem to care and it is again paying for corrupt scholars to toe the party line



  7. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Once Again Pours Cold Water on Patent Maximalists

    Any hopes of a rebound or turnaround have just been shattered because a bizarre attack on the appeal process (misusing tribal immunity) fell on deaf ears and software patents definitely don't interest the highest court, which already deemed them invalid half a decade ago



  8. Links 17/4/2019: Qt 5.12.3 Released, Ola Bini Arrested (Political Stunts)

    Links for the day



  9. Links 16/4/2019: CentOS Turns 15, Qt Creator 4.9.0 Released

    Links for the day



  10. GNU/Linux is Being Eaten Alive by Large Corporations With Their Agenda

    A sort of corporate takeover, or moneyed interests at the expense of our freedom, can be seen as a 'soft coup' whose eventual outcome would involve all or most servers in 'the cloud' (surveillance with patent tax as part of the rental fees) and almost no laptops/desktops which aren't remotely controlled (and limit what's run on them, using something like UEFI 'secure boot')



  11. Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF

    Restrictions on speech are said to have been spread and reached some of the most liberal circles, according to a credible veteran who opposes illiberal censorship



  12. Corporate Media Will Never Cover the EPO's Violations of the Law With Respect to Patent Scope

    The greed-driven gold rush for patents has resulted in a large pool of European Patents that have no legitimacy and are nowadays associated with low legal certainty; the media isn't interested in covering such a monumental disaster that poses a threat to the whole of Europe



  13. A Linux Foundation Run by People Who Reject Linux is Like a Children's Charity Whose Management Dislikes Children

    We remain concerned about the lack of commitment that the Linux Foundation has for Linux; much of the Linux Foundation's Board, for example, comes from hostile companies



  14. Links 15/4/2019: Linux 5.1 RC5 and SolydXK Reviewed

    Links for the day



  15. Links 14/4/2019: Blender 2.80 Release Plan and Ducktype 1.0

    Links for the day



  16. 'Poor' (Multi-Millionaire) Novell CEO, Who Colluded With Steve Ballmer Against GNU/Linux, is Trying to Censor Techrights

    Novell’s last CEO, a former IBMer who just like IBM decided to leverage software patents against the competition (threatening loads of companies using "platoons of patent lawyers"), has decided that siccing lawyers at us would be a good idea



  17. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation (LF) is “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 2)

    Calls for papers (CfP) and who gets to assess what's presented or what's not presented is a lesser-explored aspect, especially in this age when large corporate sponsors get to indirectly run entire 'community' events



  18. Patent Maximalists Are Enabling Injustices and Frauds

    It's time to come to grips with the simple fact that extreme patent lenience causes society to suffer and is mostly beneficial to bad actors; for the patent profession to maintain a level of credibility and legitimacy it must reject the deplorable, condemnable zealots



  19. Further Decreasing Focus on Software Patents in the United States as They Barely Exist in Valid Form Anymore

    No headway made after almost 4 months of Iancu-led stunts; software patents remain largely dead and buried, so we’re moving on to other topics



  20. Links 13/4/2019: Wine 4.6 and Emacs 26.2 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Links 12/4/2019: Mesa 19.0.2, Rust 1.34.0 and Flatpak 1.3.2 Released

    Links for the day



  22. Caricature: EPO Standing Tall

    A reader's response to the EPO's tall claims and fluff from yesterday



  23. The EPO is Slipping Out of Control Again and It's Another Battistelli-Like Mess With Disregard for the Rule of Law and Patent Scope

    The banker in chief is just 'printing' or 'minting' lots and lots of patents, even clearly bogus ones that lack substance to back their perceived value



  24. Global Finance Magazine Spreads Lies About the Unitary Patent and German Constitutional Court

    Alluding to the concept of a "unified European patent," some site connected to Class Editori S.p.A. and based in Manhattan/New York City tells obvious lies about the Unified Patent Court (UPC), possibly in an effort to sway outcomes and twist people's expectations



  25. New Building as Perfect Metaphor for the EPO Under the Frenchmen Battistelli and Campinos

    The EPO is in "propaganda mode" only 9 months after the latest French President took Office; the Office is seen as dishonest, even under the new leadership, which routinely lies to the public and to its own staff



  26. Links 11/4/2019: Twisted 19.2.0 Released, Assange Arrested

    Links for the day



  27. EPO Still Wasting Budget, Paying Media and Academics for Spin

    EPO money continues to flow like water into hands that are complicit in legitimising the EPO's management and policies; this highlights the grave dangers of lack of oversight at the EPO, not to mention lawlessness or lack of enforcement



  28. Links 10/4/2019: Microsoft's GDPR Trouble, New Fedora 29 Images

    Links for the day



  29. Linux Magazine is Run by Advertisers, Not GNU/Linux (and It's Hardly the Exception)

    Advertising is big money — so big in fact that publications no longer care what’s true but instead focus on what text brings them more income (from advertisers, of course)



  30. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation (LF) is “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 1)

    Proprietary software giants with their sponsorships and gifts are more like Trojan horses or parasites striving to infect the host; how can the LF be protected from them?


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