Trusting businessmen in suits to run an Office which is centered around science

Summary: Battistelli hits back at IAM's dissent with an unprecedented volume of lies, European media catches up with union busting by Battistelli, and staff of the EPO expresses frustration with everything at the Office under Battistelli's incompetent management

WHAT a gross liar the President of the EPO has become. It's not even funny, it's just utterly disgusting. First Chile had a 9/11 (regime change by coup), then came 11/9 in Berlin, then 9/11 in New York and now 11/9 again in the US. Coinciding with 11/9 in the US we now have Liar Supreme Battistelli drooling lies into the pages of IAM -- a site he loves so much to cite in support of his lies.

"Coinciding with 11/9 in the US we now have Liar Supreme Battistelli drooling lies into the pages of IAM -- a site he loves so much to cite in support of his lies."Several days ago IAM's editor in chief seemed to have had enough. He or a colleague said that Battistelli had scored an "own goal" and later wrote an entire article about it. Battistelli with his infamous temper must have blown a fuse at the sight of that and he pressured IAM to print a lot of lies without questioning or fact-checking. This new 'article' is the biggest and densest pile of lies I have come across since the buildup for the Iraq invasion (like those horrible articles from Judith Miller or tweets from Donald Trump about climate science). To quote just one fragment from his lies and revisionism:

On another point, I also strongly refute any accusations of “management by intimidation”. To try to base the discussions on facts rather than rumours, we asked a team of renowned, experienced external consultants to analyse the Office’s situation with respect to our financial and social situation, and health and well-being. The results show a strong improvement compared to 2010, with some remarkable achievements and some areas of progress. They were shared with all the stakeholders (staff, managers, staff representatives, trade union and AC delegations) and will continue to be debated with all in order to define our next priorities.

There are too many lies in this response to rebut one by one. It's like a whole diarrhea of false statements and cleaning it all up with detailed evidence is a monumental (time-consuming) task. We sure hope that Joff Wild believes none of that stuff he had just clicked "Publish" on.

"Looking at IP Kat today, we still find some distressed calls for intervention."Elsewhere in the media we now have some press coverage from Germany (once again it's Stefan Krempl, who knows this conflict very well) and a politician's rant from France (not the first time she speaks of these issues). Can native German and French speakers help us get a decent translation of both articles/columns? We strive to maintain an accurate and complete record of it all. Can anyone please translate these and securely send these to us for publication?

Looking at IP Kat today, we still find some distressed calls for intervention. Things are becoming rather grim at the Office and one person told us today that "Not My President" is an apt description of the sentiment inside the Office. It's actually the bigoted President who encourages violence and intolerance, not the staff (his victims). "What is really going on, nobody gives a damn," this one person said, as the management's abuse just carries on and there's no sign of it coming to an end any time soon. Here is the full comment:

In December, the AC will let BB do what he wants. They'll back down, like they've always done since they unanimously reelected him. They know what they're doing. They want him to stay there (as well as his VPs) to introduce the pension reform that he promised to deliver next year and which ALL delegates and their ministers want dearly, especially the "big" member states. When they tell BB to calm down, it's just for the show, or maybe, for some, because they're a bit annoyed by the bad press. When they say that they want it to look like there is justice, that's exactly what they mean: it has to LOOK all right, nothing more. Because when it does not, some ministers get some embarrassing phone calls from journalists and that must stop. What is really going on, nobody gives a damn. If you want to predict what they will do, just ask yourself: what is the easiest thing to do ?

You're on your own. Close ranks and hang on...

President Battistelli "has an history of simply ignoring the Council requests," notes the following new comment:

So what happens next? Maybe that is the question that should be asked?

What happens if the Council decides to put some pressure on the President (for example by requesting cooperation under Article 20 ppi as suggested here)? Wouldn't the President continue business as usual? He has an history of simply ignoring the Council requests, hasn't he? It is quite naive from Merpel to believe that Article 20 would have any effect. Why would Battistelli care?

What happens if the Council does nothing? Battistelli simply continues till the end of his period and the member States simply stay with their arms crossed doing nothing because of immunity?

I am afraid, the most likely future is that Battistelli will simply carry on for the next 2 years, firing whomever he does not like every other month, continue to give well paid administrative posts to whomever he wants and spend money on buildings and computer system without any real control.

Here is a note about erosion of patent quality -- a subject that has intrigued us for as long as it became and remained a public issue (several years ago):

If the EPO re-starts examining applications properly, i.e. to a high standard, including those I prosecute, I may be more supportive of anti-PB sentiment. However, improvements need to be made, whether or not PB is attempting to imprive anythig.

On an individual level, I am fully supportive of protecting people from unfair treatment I get a lot of myself.

Here is one response to this:

Chicken and egg. As long as BB dictates, examiners cannot change their standards back. He is trying and succeeding in spending less on examination while claiming that can be done with improved quality. Your call. Can it for you?

Here is another message tackling Battistelli's lies about patent quality:

You know what the Management of the EPO has been publishing. We improved our quality. Out union published data saying we feel less confident about our product quality.

If you feel the quality has declined, it is your job to defend your applicant's rights by complaining to the EPO management that the quality you have received has declined.

There is no need to refer to the actual product, but examples can help.

And do it publicly, preferably not anonymously.

Only then will the public pick up on this problem, and media may gain attention. And only then will there be a pressure on the AC members to actually change anything.

If you won't do anything for you, we will not risk our job being proactive for you, as we will get problems when we do anything without being prompted to do so.

"As I see it," one person added, "applicants who get dodgy patents granted because of the present examination" at the EPO. That's an important point and here is the entire comment:

As I see it, applicants who get dodgy patents granted because of the present examination process which discourages examiners from raising objections, are unlikely to complain. It is only those who have to defend themselves against dodgy patents in the courts who would complain. It will take some time for these patents to reach the litigation stage, by which M. BB will be long gone. Only a small proportion of patents get litigated anyway.

Don't expect to get much support from the UK IPO: since the move to Wales, the upper echelons have been increasingly populated by Civil Service generalists rather than ex-examiners who had risen through the ranks and actually understood from personal experience what it is all about. Compared with the 1980's the status and working conditions of examiners has been much reduced, reflected in the various public consultations which have included proposals to stop examining the description (allegedly following an embryonic EPO proposal) and to move some of the examiners' work to clerical staff, ostensibly to save money that ought to have resulted in fee reductions but which in practice gets creamed off as special dividends to the BIS.

Some people have chosen humour to describe their frustration and wrote odes like this one:

Eponians, wha hae wi' Prunier bled, Eponians, wham SUEPO has aften led, Welcome tae your gory bed, Or tae Victorie!

Noo's the day, and noo's the hour: See the front o' battle lour, See approach proud Benoît's power - Zeljko and Elodie!

Wha will be a traitor knave? Wha will fill a coward's grave? Wha sae base as be a slave? Laat him turn and flee!

Wha, for Eponia's rule o' law, Freedom's sword will strangly draw, Freeman stand, or Freeman fa', Laat him on wi' me!

By Oppression's woes and pains! By your staff reps in servile chains! We will drain our dearest veins, But they shall be free!

Lay the proud usurpers low! Tyrants fall in every foe! Liberty's in every blow! - Laat us doe or dee!'

There was another such ode:

Psst.., it’s oh so quiet! says...

Many illegal loop holes remain to be plugged EPO system is facing criticism and it is wholly bugged Justice is sold as revealed with emergence of new facts it is cleverly wrapped in BB’s words with simple tact

Under official ret act, nothing can be made public or revealed Under the oath of secrecy it is cleverly concealed Eponians can’t dream for getting immediate relief Loosing faith and trust as mark of disbelief

Innocents are sometimes punished for nothing Trial summary drags on for years to prove something BB and his goons rule the scene it has been made laughing stock which is never witnessed or seen

Let sacred principles of justice be upheld Let innocents be not prosecuted and held It may or can have legitimate delay This may send the message across and relay

"Good to hear," one insider told us this morning about our plan to continue covering these matters (we have a lot of material that has not been published yet). "It's surprising that a critic of the EPO does so much to support its staff, and to save the Office. You would expect the AC to do that. But for political reasons they are (or at least were) against staff."

“It's surprising that a critic of the EPO does so much to support its staff, and to save the Office. You would expect the AC to do that. But for political reasons they are (or at least were) against staff.”
      --AnonymousWe were never against patents as a whole and certainly not against the EPO, just against particular elements therein, notably software patents. There's a saying along the lines of, when people don't criticise you, then they ceased to care, they no longer try to improve anything and thus it implies/insinuates your failure. I care about the EPO because I care about Europe and a potent patent system -- not a production line -- is what gives Europe a competitive edge. This weekend we'll write about SIPO (China) and the USPTO, demonstrating just how attractive a target they've made their countries to patent trolls. They're literally destroying their own country by issuing patents like Wells Fargo opens new bank accounts ("Wells Fargo Opened a Couple Million Fake Accounts" for those who have not heard yet).

At the EPO, based on our years of reporting (soon entering the third year of intensive/extensive reporting), workers worry. They want to do their job properly, but under Battistelli they cannot and many feel as though they'll lose their job as Battistelli destroys their employer (the Office); The Administrative Council isn't firing him because he allegedly pays them (or their country) -- in its own right a sackable offense in a sane system.

“The situation at the EPO is catastrophic,” wrote one person today, adding some background information and writing to the original author, who has not touched the subject (EPO scandals) since the summer, until a few days ago...

You suggest that the AC members should invite a review and inspection from the national regulatory authorities in the countries in which the main Office sites are located, i.e. the German and Dutch labour ministries.

The idea is good. An honest man would not be afraid of an independent inspection. The problem comes when the man is not really honest and has things to hide.

The situation at the EPO is catastrophic. Far away from human rights, good governance and European standard. The dismissal of staff representatives and the no respect of the rules of law are the tip of the Iceberg.

Battistelli is all but stupid. He knows that an independent investigation at the EPO means the disclosure of a tyranny. The only inspection he will accept are the ones done by friendly auditors paid by himself (with the EPO money) which will repeat his rosy point of view. The AC members know the situation at the EPO. They are afraid of the scandal that an independent inspection will pop up. Because immediately questions will rise: Why did they let the situation go so far without control? Why the AC approved regulations that violate human rights and violate the rules of law? Which personal advantages did the AC members received from the EPO president to vote “yes” during years?

It's rather amazing that in spite of 0% support from staff Battistelli continues to be the boss. The Council should stop sitting on its hands and its Chairman should pay closer attention to the irreparable longterm damage caused by Battistelli instead of skinning chinchillas for profit. ⬆