Summary: Rewriting history (revisionism) regarding Battistelli and what was demanded amidst abusive behaviour from him
THE IP-CENTRIC MEDIA, even by a so-called “conspiracy of silence” as the late Pieter Hintjens once dubbed it, has become somewhat complicit with the EPO. It continues to stand by quietly and idly while the EPO is being destroyed and buys the media. Sometimes it even throws a bone to Battistelli or offers him a platform (for puff pieces and lies).
Quite frankly, we lost faith in much of the above media. Not even the local media in Munich is responsive anymore. It shuts its eyes, shuts its mouth, shuts its ears and pretends that EPO (or Eponia) does not exist in Munich and that nothing interesting or noteworthy happens there other than banal granting of patents. On IP Kat not covering EPO scandals (no lack of them!) anymore, one person wrote this yesterday: “Disappointing lack of EPO information here these days. Has Merpel been neutered? Or worse still had an accident with a diplomatic car. Let’s hope she’s happily chasing small furry creatures in Denmark and will be back soon.”
The other day IP Watch (a decent site most of the time) issued a rare report about the EPO. It doesn’t write so much about the EPO anymore (more WIPO focus), but it used to write about the EPO more habitually. Readers should see the comment on this article, based on one item (from May). The article has been updated with damage control from Team Battistelli and it now says:
[Update:] Asked to confirm whether current disciplinary procedures have been suspended pending the December AC meeting, an EPO spokesman said later that the council “did not ask the President to take such a position.” Moreover, he emailed, the disciplinary committee is equally composed of management and staff representatives, and it decides independently on its recommendation, uninfluenced by any external authority. [end update]
Since it includes gender (“spokesman”), we are guessing it was Rainer. We have heard some unpleasant things about him from journalists and as we noted about a year ago, nowadays the EPO lies both to journalists and to staff (and to job applicants). These people simply cannot be trusted!
See the remainder of the article and the comment:
The statement of the EPO spokesman (see the above [Update]), is typical of EPO, and incorrect:
While it is true that the Council “did not ask the President to take such a position,” by the help of an official resolution during its October 2016 meeting, the Office is nevertheless walking a fine line:
Firstly, during the last Council meeting, several delegations, in particular CH, FR, UK and NL, insisted in clear words that no decision should be taken on running disciplinary procedures. Secondly, the position of the president is in contrast with the Administrative Council’s (AC) resolution of this March, which requested him, inter alia,
“to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so, and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation” and
“pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken, to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions”
The two requirements “that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so” and “pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken” would clearly not be met if the president would take a decision on any disciplinary proceedings before revised regulations on investigative/disciplinary procedures have been approved by the AC. The requirement “to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions” would not be met either since the proposals the president presented at the 149th AC meeting did not meet legal standards, such that the delegations forced him to withdraw them.
The first statement of the EPO spokesman that the Council “did not ask the President to take such a position,” is thus incorrect; the Council asked the President “to take such a position” in its March resolution.
The second statement in the email that “the disciplinary committee … decides independently on its recommendation,” is well-worded, but – irrespective of whether it is true – diverts the reader from the main subject; the Administrative Council’s resolution of this March.
By taking a decision on any disciplinary proceedings under the current regulations, the EPO president would be in breach of the March resolution. The Council would be obliged to dismiss him.
As we said back in May, Battistelli should have been sacked, but his pet chinchilla (Kongstad) continues to protect him no matter what, even hiding his contract and salary. What kind of oversight of this?!?! █