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

07.04.16

Team Battistelli Parties Like It’s Still 2010 (Pre-Battistelli Governance), Fails to Acknowledge Demise of EPO as Popular Employer and Instead Lies to Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Would you believe these people and wish to work for them?

MoU signed by Bergot
A conspiracy of lies and mutual cover-up

Summary: In an effort to hide the brain drain and the struggle to attract and recruit talent to fill the vacuum, Elodie Bergot (shown above next to Željko Topić and Benoît Battistelli) lies to the staff she’s supposed to look over at Human Resources (HR)

THE EPO is losing a lot of technical talent [1, 2, 3, 4] and even senior management. This has already developed into a crisis and earlier today the EPO’s Twitter account publicly appealed for job applications.

The EPO’s PR people asked: “Are you an engineer or scientist interested in joining an international team at the forefront of technology?” Maybe they should have added that recruitment of Brits is down by 80%, required skills have reportedly declined (in order to encourage more applications), and working conditions have been massively eroded to the point where accepting a job at the EPO can leave one unemployed for years thereafter (after a short probational period with no ordinary work benefits). SUEPO has already remarked on the subject and said in its public site that the EPO should be more frank/honest/transparent with potential/prospective recruits, telling them upfront about the traps, the caveats and all sorts of secret rules which turn examiners into slaves with no basic rights, very few safeguards, and no genuine resort to justice (e.g. appeals). Earlier today, sites for patent lawyers were repeating what the EPO had said [1, 2] (puff pieces) but not actually investigating the real news, which requires actual work. Distracting the journalists much these days? FTI Consulting at work? According to this tweet from the EPO (also posted earlier today), Battistelli keeps flushing money down the toilet in a desperate effort to drown out real reporting about the EPO. Well, after half a dozen tweets about EIA17 (Battistelli's lobbying/PR), the EPO says “We’ve already started receiving nominations for the #EIA17! Thanks for helping us to reward great inventors!” The PR team neglects to mention the hidden cost. Better start raising up to 7,000,000 Euros in budget for this next stunt, right? Maybe start paying the next “media partners” upfront, in order to keep them silent or complicit (like the Financial Times this year)?

“Reality check reveals that Bergot is about as reliable as her husband’s friend, Battistelli, i.e. not at all.”Last year Battistelli paid French media, which as a result censored itself (for him). A new French press report, published last week in “Libération”, criticises Battistelli, so apparently he didn’t spread money from the EPO’s coffers widely enough. One person explained that “Libération” is a French newspaper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1973. “Since 2005 Edouard de Rothschild has been a major stakeholder,” this person added, which may be rather interesting because of alleged Rothschild-Battistelli connections.

Speaking of the French, consider Battistelli’s EPO circle which is largely French and now includes the oddly-appointed Bergot [1, 2, 3, 4] with her bodyguards* (more than one person). According to some sources, Bergot (widely viewed as Battistelli’s HR ‘plant’) said that “The EPO’s ranking in 28th place shows the Office’s positive image as an employer of choice for scientists,” demonstrating ignorance if not dishonesty (the latter would be worse). Bergot wrote this in the EPO’s intranet on the 31st of May of this year, i.e. just over a month ago. Reality check reveals that Bergot is about as reliable as her husband’s friend, Battistelli, i.e. not at all. “Looking at the broader picture and not to just a single number (out of the context),” one person remarked, “[i]n Germany in 2012 the EPO ranked 24 amongst natural science students, now rank 28; amongst engineering students (making up a considerable part of potential candidates), the EPO does not rank amongst the top 50 (69); amongst young professionals the EPO dropped out of the statistics “top 100″ in 2015 and 2016″ (very far from 28th place then).

“EPO management is again misinforming (nicer term for “lying”) to EPO staff.”“In the Netherlands,” we’ve learned, things are even worse. “The EPO disappeared completely from the top 100 ranks from engineering and natural science students,” sources demonstrate with hard evidence.

So there it is again. EPO management is again misinforming (nicer term for “lying”) to EPO staff. It’s easier to lie in the intranet for various reasons. Nice employer to work for, is it not? One that can be trusted and believed at the recruitment stages?
_____
* “Maximum security at the EPO,” as some people call it, has made this place tremendously less attractive to work in. In the EPO’s own words: “Visitors to the EPO are advised that, as from now, their bags and luggage will be subject to a visual inspection by security. This measure will be applied in all EPO buildings at all sites. Thank you for your co-operation.“

Image of Battistelli’s EPO Tarnished in the UK and Elsewhere as Battistelli Warms up to Cuba, Colombia, and Panama

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli: Comes from country of famous revolution; Promotes corporate interests and attacks on workers' rights

Summary: Sooner or later, judging by the severely damaged image of the EPO under Battistelli’s reign, all the allies who remain with Battistelli will be equally questionable

The public sentiments towards the EPO are largely negative (more on that in our next post), especially so in the UK. EPO recruitment of Brits fell by 80% (they probably don’t bother even applying) and these new comments from The Register are also revealing. One person wrote (correctly):

Most big players don’t contest the validity of a big pile of patents – they just show their own big pile of patents and agree a cross-licensing deal. It’s cheaper and avoids a lot of risk.

Most small players can’t contest the validity of even a single patent – they just can’t afford the legal fees (about a million dollars), and they don’t want the risk of a big judgement against them that puts them out of business, so they just have to pay up.

So most people filing patents would like them all to be rubber-stamped. Patent applications need to be checked very carefully in order to protect everyone else from the patent-holder.

We have heard from British SMEs that are extremely upset at the EPO (see coverage from around January of this year) and seriously consider taking legal action over the matter. Here is the Swiss system being cited by another comment:

“A very high degree of certainty in the validity of your patent”? Dream on. The likelihood of your patent being found invalid is determined by its commercial value, and has very little to do with the search and examination process. An EPO examiner spends a few days on each case. In a serious validity challenge, you will move heaven and earth to find prior art or weaknesses in the patent. It may take many man-months, or even man-years. The EPO’s little contribution is a helpful indicator, but it does not give you “a very high degree of certainty”, or even any kind of certainty. In fact it can be downright misleading.

By the way, some patent systems (eg Switzerland) function very well without any examination of patentability. It’s the applicant’s responsibility to make sure that he doesn’t claim protection for something he’s not entitled to. This makes for a very sober and reasonable patent environment.

Here is a good comment about software patents and the UK-IPO:

Every hour they argue among themselves is worth 8 patents not granted. I cannot imagine the UK patent office doing something so constructive. The UK patent office is responsible for the policy of granting software patents as long as ‘software’ is spelled ‘computer implemented invention’.

There was some rubbish in the Brexit propaganda about foreign EU judges making rulings that applied to UK companies. The bit they forgot to mention was that UK judges made rulings that applied to the whole of Europe. Once an EU court is selected for a patent dispute, that court’s decision applies to the whole of Europe so companies do not have to face nuisance litigation in every state. Before Brexit, a UK company could get their case heard in the UK.

Leaving the EU will not make the European patent office go away. UK trolls will still have to file there to sue EU companies. EU trolls will still sue UK companies, but post Brexit the hearing will be outside the UK.

Years ago, like thousands of other programmers I wrote to my MEP and asked him to vote against legalising software patents. The European parliament listened, so people with time and money to burn stand a good chance of getting a computer implemented invention patent invalidated because software is mathematics which is not patentable. I have also written to UK MPs and got replies like ‘I do not care about that, I just want to send money to Africa’, ‘programmers do not understand the benefits of the patent system so I am going to spend millions on an advertising campaign to educate them’ and ‘programmers do not understand patents’.

What the above could mention is also the loophole created within the EPO to permit software patents in Europe. Germany is even more lenient than Britain on this matter.

The EPO, says another comment, is “[a]nother institution beginning with European we’ll be glad to see the back off.” [sic] Likely to have come from a Brexit proponent, this comment helps show the degree to which Battistelli’s abuses contribute to the negative opinion/view of the European Union — a subject on which we remarked here before.

“Given Panama’s activities as reported in the press, patent co-operation with the EPO is unlikely to make a difference for Panama’s economy.”
      –Anonymous
Now, looking elsewhere, we also learn about EPO “Cooperation with Cuba, Colombia and … Panama” (notorious for Soviet ties, gangs, tax evasion, censorship, and all sorts of other mischief). In the words of an anonymous writer: “International co-operation seems to be one of Mr. Battistelli’s priorities. We have been informed about his cooperation (these co-operations are in the form of bilateral agreements, the contents of which is not published) with WIPO and with OHIM (now EUIPO), with China (in relation to which he received an honorary doctorate), with Morocco and of course with the EPO member states, the latter at an admitted cost for the EPO of 13 million Euros (CA/24/14, point 25). According to a EPO internal report Mr. Battistelli recently also visited Cuba, Panama and Columbia in order to “develop co-operation activities in Latin America”. What the report fails to mention is that during the last 5 years Cuba filed an average of 8 European patent applications per year, and Panama scored an average of 5 applications per year. Columbia is doing better with 15 applications per year. According to the official report, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Cuba and Colombia. This appears not to be the case for Panama. We cite: “There, the President met the Vice-Minister of Industry and Commerce and the Director of IP Office (DIGERP) who, among other relevant topics discussed, showed a particular interest for the validation agreements the EPO is currently pursuing with non-European Countries.” Given Panama’s activities as reported in the press, patent co-operation with the EPO is unlikely to make a difference for Panama’s economy.”

In a similar vein, these expensive trips of Battistelli and his bodyguards are unlikely to bring much income (application/renewal fees) to the EPO. These look like cheap publicity stunts, coordinated with people whose reputation (or political careers) would not be considerably harmed by being associated with a tyrant like Battistelli.

If Battistelli spends so much effort creating ties with rather notorious countries (on human rights, illegal drug trade, trafficking, financial regulation etc.) that barely submit any patent applications, what does it say about Battistelli’s vision of Europe? One might go a step further and say that Battistelli’s abuses contributed to Brexit. No matter how much controversy Battistelli generates, he’ll always remain closely-guarded and welcomed by infamous oppressors and monarchs (with royal titles). Diplomatically he’s useless inside Europe. Governance of occupation or authority by fear is the legacy of Battistelli at the EPO, which serves to legitimise or lend credibility to some caricatures/stereotypes/stigma regarding EU bureaucrats.

UPC a Dead Project, as Per Analysis From Foley and Lardner LLP; What Next for Team Battistelli and Team UPC?

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A shipwreck of UPC

Summary: Those who are trying to warp and subvert Europe’s patent system/s so as to benefit large corporations (often from abroad) are not getting their way and may simply have to give up trying

Frederic Henschel, a partner at the US law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, has just published at Science|Business this article titled “Could Brexit be a death knell for the European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court?”

The substance of the article is about as pessimistic (if not more pessimistic) than the headline insinuates, much like yesterday's analysis from the EPO-leaning IAM. It’s not looking too good for the UPC anymore. To quote Henschel, “UK withdrawal from the EU will fundamentally change the basic scope of the Unitary Patent and the associated Unitary Patent Court. This could permanently jeopardise the launch of the European single patent” (key word here is permanently).

“Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all.”Henschel also recalls the scam privately perpetrated by Team UPC (still busy trying to 'hack' the law). They advertised jobs that don’t exist and may never exist at all (in the future). We were right all along about it, so where is the responsibility or liability for wasting applicants’ time? To quote Henschel: “Applications for a position as UPC judge were being accepted until 4 July 2016 [i.e. today], but UK applicants may now be excluded from consideration. Given the prominent role the UK has historically played in patent law, removing UK citizens as potential UPC judges would be a notable loss of talent.”

Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all. Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk. It’s not a reconcilable problem.

There are several more articles like the above (we offered a media survey last week) and this latest one does not cover UPC aspects although it does speak of the profound impact of Brexit (whether an exit is implemented at all at the end or simply abandoned, as it increasingly seems likely to be a referendum falling on deaf political ears).

“Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk.”Earlier today MIP continued its UPC series, laying out a scenario about a (likely) dead project. That’s just what we have come to expect from patent lawyers’ Web sites, ones where the writers are associated directly (e.g. through Bristows) with Team UPC. “In the latest in our series of UPC scenarios, Laura Whiting and Inmaculada Lorenzo explore the options for a pharmaceutical patent owner faced with a potential infringer manufacturing its product in Spain,” MIP writes. Well, Spain vigorously opposes the UPC, so there’s something a little odd about this scenario. It seems like self promotion in the form of an article, much like this EPO spam from yesterday (paid ‘article’ in Reuters, titled “EPO intends to grant patent”).

The European Patent Organisation Jokes About Independence on the 4th of July (US Independence Day)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

How to frame an assault on independence as “greater independence and improved efficiency” [sic]

The independence farce at EPO

Summary: Distancing itself even further from reality and from truth-telling, the European Patent Organisation resorts to reality distortion and EPO communications people called their face-saving lies “news”, after they had lied both to staff and to journalists

Greater lies from the EPO were finally promoted in the Organisation’s or Office’s Twitter account today (the account is called EuropeanPatentOffice but the username is “EPOorg”, which is contradictory unless they refer to the domain name). This came out several days after we had offered a translation of this pack of lies. Ironically enough and probably by coincidence this happened on the same day as the US celebrations of independence day. The President of the Boards of Appeal will be controlled by appointment by Battistelli, based on my careful reading of the EPLAW analysis as well as some press articles about it. The above tweet and accompanying/corresponding “news” item isn’t amusing; it’s actually rather disgusting as it grossly misrepresents what Battistelli and his goons did behind closed doors. Words are no longer enough to express the disgust; maybe more caricatures would help. CA/29/16, which we wrote about last night, showed further potential retaliatory tactics. So where is the substance for that “independence” nonsense?

“This is a typical tactic in politics. One puts forth an absolutely horrible proposal/bill and then lets it be slightly improved for initially-sceptical parties to approve under the supposition that the watering down somehow had them accomplish something.”“CA/29/16 Rev1 is certainly an improvement over the original,” wrote one person today. “but it is still far from being acceptable.”

This is a typical tactic in politics. One puts forth an absolutely horrible proposal/bill and then lets it be slightly improved for initially-sceptical parties to approve under the supposition that the watering down somehow had them accomplish something. To quote further from that comment: “It is good that we no longer have a vague reference to the “legitimate interests of the Office”. But what could possibly be meant by “integrity of the EPO’s appeal system”? And why has the option of forbidding a member of the BoA to take up a new position been retained?”

Perhaps more importantly, who will be appointed to run/manage the people whom Battistelli wishes to crush? The President of the Boards of Appeal is appointed in part by Battistelli himself and then there’s the issue of HR and IT (i.e. Bergot and other Battistelli cronies) meddling in Boards of Appeal activities, recruitment and so forth. This is independence???

“The Organisation is a lot more loyal to the Office (Battistelli) than to anybody else, which perpetuates and strengthens the perception that Battistelli has “got them by the balls,” to use a crude slang term.”As the above comment put it, “I struggle to think of any potential conflict of interest that could not be dealt with by instead placing limitations upon the ex-member’s future interactions with the EPO. If those limitations make a new position untenable, then that is a problem for the ex-member to sort out with his or her new employer. But forbidding a member to take up a new position is just an unenforceable restraint of trade (and an infringement of human rights).”

Another person rightly argued that “the amendments are cosmetic. If you check my concerns (and those of CIPA or AMBA) you can see by yourself that they have not been addressed.”

“It’s militarised, it enjoys special treatment (even immunity from law enforcement) and while striving to merely maintain some illusion of independence it actively eliminates the independence as envisioned and codified by the EPC.”“There is not much point in being consulted if no-one listens to you,” wrote another person. What can the public deduce from total apathy towards AMBA? The Organisation is a lot more loyal to the Office (Battistelli) than to anybody else, which perpetuates and strengthens the perception that Battistelli has “got them by the balls,” to use a crude slang term. Given the lack of gender diversity at the Organisation’s management, the term can be almost taken literally. Under Battistelli, the Organisation and Office are almost synonymous (no proper seperation or effective oversight) — to the point where the EPO's lawyers use the words "Organisation" and "Office" interchangeably, and thus wrongly.

One person asked: “What’ll be the free rooms in the Isar building be used for?” More personnel under direct supervision of “him”? More toys (IU, …) he can send out to other buildings? I fear his bodyguards are in “need” of a readyness room. His right hand [Bergot] and her bodyguards too? More luxury apartments?”

Whatever is going on at the EPO, it’s like there’s a presidential palace is not fortress. It’s militarised, it enjoys special treatment (even immunity from law enforcement) and while striving to merely maintain some illusion of independence it actively eliminates the independence as envisioned and codified by the EPC. This is a coup. Battistelli ‘hacked’ the EPC. It’s now a task/duty of everyone conscious and brave enough inside the EPO to restore order and honour the EPC.

Links 4/7/2016: VectorLinux 7.2 Beta, Linux 4.7 RC 6

Posted in News Roundup at 2:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNOME bluefish

Contents

GNU/Linux

Free Software/Open Source

  • Why PayPal bets on open-source

    The old way was to spend a lot of money on limited software and hardware. The new way, as PayPal’s Bill Scott, VP of next gen commerce found, is to scale out with lots of low-cost hardware and software. Open-source enables this, and to marvelously good effect.

    Scott, a firm believer in lean engineering, stands by the fact that it’s the secret sauce that fosters innovation and efficacy.

    Lean engineering, simply put, is becoming a part of the experimentation and learning cycle. The idea is to have rapid iteration and get feedback from customers quickly.

  • Distributed, Open Source Chat with Vector and Matrix

    When it comes to chat, you have many choices. Facebook Messenger, Google Talk, Whatsapp, Kik, and Slack are all viable options. However, all of these choices are proprietary, and require you to use servers that you can’t run yourself. They’re highly centralized, closed source tools.

    In the open source world, IRC has been the go to solution for chat for many years, and for good reason. Anyone can run a server, there’s many clients, and it’s built on open standards. But IRC comes from a pre-mobile world, and relies on clients to maintain persistent connections to the server. It’s not the best experience on a phone.

  • The Growth of the Linux and Open Source Channel since 1989

    The Linux kernel was born twenty-five years ago this summer. Since that time a thriving partner ecosystem has arisen around open source platforms built on Linux, GNU and other free and open source software products. Here’s a look at milestones in the evolution of the Linux channel and partner ecosystem.

  • Living, in Limbo [Ed: Pieter Hintjens, famous Free software developer, with terminal cancer]

    “Is he getting better, or is he dying?” asked my nephew of me. How to explain? The hospital sent me home three months ago with boxes of pain killers, oxygen, a medical bed, and home care. Palliative care: aim for quality of life, not return to normal. And yet here I am, not on oxygen, not taking the pain killers, and seeing medical staff only when it’s time for my biweekly chemotherapy.

    I’m clearly not dying yet. And still, slowly losing weight and muscle. A simple walk leaves me tired and needing to sit. I wake up, make an early morning cup of chicory/coffee, drink it, then lie down again, hit by the simple effort of standing up.

    We did a CAT scan a few weeks ago. Inconclusive. Things don’t seem worse. Yet the numerous little blobs of cancer are still there in my lungs, patient. Another scan in a month, and we’ll have a better idea.

  • Web Browsers

  • SaaS/Back End

  • CMS

    • Arastta: Community Driven & Open Source eCommerce

      Arastta eCommerce is an open source project which is driven by its community. For a relatively new startup project Arastta has a great community sharing ideas, translating into different world languages, reporting issues and bugs, contributing the source code and helping to plan the future of the project.

  • Pseudo-Open Source (Openwashing)

  • Public Services/Government

  • Openness/Sharing/Collaboration

    • Peerplays creates open-source profit sharing module

      Blockchain-based online gaming and wagering platform Peerplays, has created an open-source fee sharing module that will enable direct profit distribution to token holders by any Graphene-based blockchain platform.

    • Open Hardware/Modding

      • Wevolver Open Source 3D Printable Robots And More (video)

        …if you are interested in creating your own 3D printed robots using a little Arduino programming, open source coding or making in general. You might be interested in some new 3D printed open source robot projects which have been published to the Revolver website for all skill levels.

Leftovers

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts