12.08.17
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The EPO’s push for UPC, which has already involved payments to media and academia, is spreading to the EU, which unfortunately fails to uphold the Rule of Law and the spirit of the EPC
THE EPO, having recently corrupted academia for some UPC propaganda, managed to convince the European Union (Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme to be specific) to promote the lies, dubbing these “[a] new study [sic] concerning the Unitary Patent…”
The EPO has also just repeated the lie it told earlier this week. “These findings confirm that the fragmentation of the current European #patent system is a persistent gap in the completion of the European Single Market for #technology,” it said. The EPO is wrong again. It did not bother asking actual technology companies. Sovereignty or assumption of innocence is not “fragmentation”, it’s due process. And either way, technology companies do not want the UPC. Many have signed a petition against it. There’s a legitimate fear that UPC would usher in software patents, among other patents that are not acceptable in pertinent nations based on their national patent law. The UPC can be viewed as a Trojan horse that overrides — not just bypasses — rational patent scope.
“Patent maximaklism at the EPO has become a disease that insiders — notably examiners — routinely complain about.”What about patents on life? Hazel Ford from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP has just published this article (actually, self-promotional marketing piece) that speaks of “Natural Products” (product of a process) being patented. Sure, go ahead and compare nature to “products” (industrial term) in order to sell/promote patents on just about everything.
She points out that the USPTO is rightly restrictive on this matter and then addresses ‘perils’ (to lawyers) associated with the EPC, which the EPO ignores anyway. To quote:
There is currently a significant divergence in practice between Europe and the United States when considering the patentability of naturally-occurring products. Since the Myriad decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the USPTO has started to reject claims directed to naturally-occurring products under 35 USC §101. In the European Patent Office (EPO), such objections do not generally arise.
The EPO’s position is that that merely finding a previously unrecognised substance occurring in nature is an unpatentable discovery. However, if that substance can be shown to produce a technical effect, then the naturally-occurring substance may be patentable (EPO Guidelines for Examination G-II, 3.1).
This ability to patent natural products derives from the rules of the European Patent Convention (EPC), which explicitly state that biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process can be patented, even if it has previously occurred in nature (Rule 27(a) EPC). Similarly, although the human body itself cannot be patented at the EPO, elements isolated from the human body, including gene sequences, can form patentable inventions, even if they are structurally identical to a natural element (Rule 29(1) and (2) EPC).
In order to obtain a patent at the EPO to a product that occurs in nature, the claim must specify that the product is isolated from its natural environment, or it must make it clear that the product as claimed was produced by a non-natural process.
Patent maximaklism at the EPO has become a disease that insiders — notably examiners — routinely complain about. UPC is a danger because it extends enforcement — not just patent-granting — to nations that would otherwise reject these patents based on national, rational law (evidence-based). The UPC needs to be stopped before any real damage is done to Europe’s productive industries; thankfully, the UPC is stuck, probably for good. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 5:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Presidential trends of 2017…
Summary: European media is starting to catch up with the latest from ILO and the great importance not only of the rulings but also the EPO’s response to these
THE latest EPO scandal is an unfinished story. Expect strikes next week (at least one in Munich) and plenty of discussion in the European press. The case is extraordinary because the EPO basically rejects a court’s ruling. It reinforces the stigma associated with the EPO. We wrote 5 articles about this yesterday:
- ILO is ‘Forcing’ Team Battistelli to Compensate the Banned Judge and Give Him Back His Job
- Meanwhile in Eponia, Tyrant Battistelli Must be Seeking Advice on How to Refuse to Obey Court’s Orders (Again)
- ILO Said Give the Judge His Job Back, But Christoph Ernst’s Administrative Council Will Likely Let Him Go (Unemployed)
- Less Than 24 Hours Later the EPO Already Refuses to Obey Court Orders From ILO (Updated)
- Battistelli’s EPO is Once Again Caught in Very Gross Violation of the European Patent Convention (EPC)
Plus 3 so far today:
- EPO Scandal Spills Over to Irish Media, So It’s Time for the Backstory
- SUEPO Announces Protest, EPO Distracts From the Scandal, and Readers Spill the Beans
- Antonius Tangena From the European Patent Institute (EPI) ‘Aids’ Željko Topić’s Appointment at the European Patent Office (EPO)
Expect much more on this subject. Over the weekend we’ll also release some more documents.
Mathieu Klos of JUVE has meanwhile published this article, which he summarised in English as follows: “Lawyer of suspended EPO-judge demands reinstatment – immedeatly [sic] our report…”
So German media now covers the latest scandal in Munich. Expect French/Dutch media to join in. Earlier today the British media revisited the subject (second time this week) and wrote about the refusal to obey the court’s orders, then some words from the Central Staff Committee:
Despite the ruling however, which explicitly stated he should be handed back his user ID and be allowed to access EPO buildings effective immediately, when Corcoran turned up at the EPO’s Isar Building in Munich after lunch on Thursday – reportedly to have a cup of tea with colleagues – he was turned away by the head of the EPO’s security who reportedly informed him that she was under instructions to ignore the court order.
[...]
In the meantime, the EPO’s staff union Central Staff Committee has written a letter to EPO management and the Administrative Council arguing that the ILO rulings demonstrate that Battistelli cannot be allowed to enact any further reforms before his term ends next year.
The letter highlights the (many) criticisms of Battistelli within the ILO’s rulings. “We cannot help but interpret the judgments both as a massive motion of no confidence in the President of the Office and a warning letter to the AC,” the letter states and argues that the council was “misled about essential points” in the Corcoran case by Battistelli.
“We have repeatedly warned against the content and pace of major reforms which have been pushed through without genuine consultation,” the staff representatives note, while pointing out that even if the EPO does follow the ILO’s judgments (which, so far, it has not), that they still do not address the underlying governance problems at the EPO.
“The ball is now with the AC,” the letter concludes, “which urgently has to answer the following question: should these reforms be left to a President and team having such a record of performance?”
The Register has already attracted many comments about ILO and what some people within the comments suspect to be AstroTurfing from the EPO (or a PR firm).
One person asked: “What are the sanctions going to be? If the ILO have no power to impose sanctions then they are pissing in the wind.”
A lot of the comments are abusive or distracting. A few comments in Kluwer Patent Blog are the same. Well, the author of the article then responded to some “aggressive” (ad hominem) comments as follows:
Thanks for your aggressive queries.
I had three separate sources confirming what happened earlier today.
I don’t know whether you’ve been following events at the EPO, but for several years its management has been aggressively investigating and disciplining staff that criticize its president or his reform plans. As a result, people aren’t all that keen on having their names published.
As for the ILO decisions, the organisation put out a news alert and a special announcement that it would be revealing the results of 8 cases a month earlier and in pubic. It said 5 of those 8 were about the EPO. It also live streamed the meeting on YouTube.
I found out about both these events because I am a journalist and that is what I do for a living.
Hope this helps.
One person responded to this article by asking: “Will Member States and EU put the final nail on the coffin of fundamental justice for EPO workers? Let them do that soon then.”
Over at Kluwer Patent Blog, “Concerned observer” expressed his/her belief that the EPO will simply disregard a court’s decision again (in spite of political pressure and staff protests). To quote:
This could be where we enter interesting territory. Article 19(2) of the PPI of the EPO reads as follows:
“The President of the European Patent Office has the duty to waive immunity where he considers that such immunity prevents the normal course of justice and that it is possible to dispense with such immunity without prejudicing the interests of the Organisation. The Administrative Council may waive immunity of the President for the same reasons”.
From the long and tortured history of the case of the “judge” that was the subject of the ILO’s judgements, there are several points where it is clear that the national courts could have a role. I shall give two examples.
The first is the alleged “defamation” of the President. Whilst immunity has not stopped senior EPO management from trying to sue in the national courts, it is a far from ideal state of affairs. That is, it creates an inequality of arms: the management can sue (and make allegedly “defamatory” comments in the course of doing so), but are immune from counter-suits. This is a powerful reason to strip the President of his immunity in connection with the case of the “judge”: if Mr Battistelli TRULY believes that he has been defamed, then the best way to sort it out will be in the national courts … but the price for pursuing this course of action will be loss of immunity from counter-suit. A fair compromise, no?
A second point on which the national courts may have a role is the manner in which the “evidence” against the judge was gathered. I for one would be keen to ensure that the EPO is not able to “snoop” on me (and my confidential communications) if and when I ever enter the EPO’s premises. I very much doubt that I am alone here, meaning that there is a strong public interest in ensuring – through investigations by national authorities and, if necessary, by prosecutions in national courts – that the management of the EPO is rendered incapable of authorising monitoring activities that break EU laws.
On both of these points, it is perfectly possible to conclude that “immunity prevents the normal course of justice”. Thus, the only question that remains is whether “it is possible to dispense with such immunity without prejudicing the interests of the Organisation”. That one is easy to answer too: the Organisation has an overriding interest in maintaining a good reputation. It will be impossible for the Organisation to do that without taking positive action to expunge the stains that have been left from the case of the “judge” that was subject to a house ban.
In the light of all of this, I suppose that the only relevant question to ask will be: which “excuse” will the AC come up with this time for not taking any action?
My bets are on no “excuse” at all. That is, I predict that they will simply ignore the judgement (like they did with the judgement of the Enlarged Board of Appeal which concluded that the President’s actions compromised their judicial independence). There is a grave danger for the AC if it chooses this path, though. This is because this issue will simply not go away, meaning that inaction on the part of the AC will only prompt further questions. These may well include questions relating to whether the AC is performing its function, and if not why not.
Of course there is nothing whatsoever for the AC to fear if there is nothing to see here – that is, no (financial) impropriety of any sort, nor any “conspiracy” to cover up misdeeds. But what are the chances of that?
We warmly welcome any more information on this subject. There’s more that we already know and intend to publish soon. It’s somewhat liberating to know that a lot of “dirty laundry” can come out now. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Published a month ago: “EPI Makes No Protest When the AC Connives With Battistelli to Trash the Rule of Law”
Summary: An E-mail from Antonius (Tony) Tangena reveals a degree of coordination between the EPI and the EPO — a potentially inappropriate action that can be seen as a cover-up attempt
More information about the situation inside the EPO during 2013 is revealed in the above E-mail exchange between the Vice-President of DG5 (Raimund Lutz) and the President of the epi at the time, who as far as can be determined was Antonius Tangena. The epi is the European Patent Institute, a.k.a. the institute of professional representatives before the European Patent Office, and it is the main representative association of European Patent attorneys.
The E-mail exchange starts with a copy of a press release dated 9 December 2013 which was sent to the President of the epi. The press release which is from the Croatian NGO “Juris Protecta” voices criticism of Željko Topić’s appointment as EPO Vice-President and provides a series of links to documentation about Topić from Croatian sources.
The President of the epi forwarded this to Lutz. In an internal EPO E-mail, Lutz forwarded the epi communication to some other EPO staff.
Although the names have been redacted from the attached E-mail copy, it seems that one of the internal recipients was Florian Andres (“F… A…”) who was the founder of the infamous Investigative Unit and its first director.
In his E-mail Lutz states that he is forwarding the communication for information and indicates that he will write back to Tangena.
These E-mails suggest that Tangena and Lutz may have been in cahoots trying to stop the circulation of material critical of Topić’s appointment as EPO Vice-President. This raises the question as to what role the epi might have played in the cover-up of the Topić affair at the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A letter to VP5 (Lutz) made the EPO go ballistic 4.5 years ago
Summary: Readers have sent some additional details regarding the EPO “backstory” that we wrote about this morning
THE EPO is trying to distract (again) from an unprecedented and historic Boards of Appeal scandal that can doom EPO management. Here is what the EPO PR account wrote some hours ago: “Are you interested in applying for the judicial internships at the Boards of Appeal? These are the requirements…”
“Notice/text in German about next week’s protest was posted under the “Munich” section.”The EPO wrote something similar when ILO delivered a truly embarrassing decision regarding Judge Corcoran from the Boards of Appeal.
Understandably — and quite frankly predictably — following the EPO’s refusal (yet again) to obey court orders SUEPO made another call for protest. It’s all in German and it says “Wir versammeln uns am 13.12.2017, um 12.30, vor dem Isar Gebäude um dort für unsere GRUNDRECHTE zu demonstrieren!”
The key point is the date and time (numerics above). SUEPO published this earlier today (apparently this evening/afternoon). Staff is very angry over in Munich and elsewhere, but the above targets Munich staff specifically (this is where Judge Corcoran is based). Notice/text in German about next week’s protest was posted under the “Munich” section.
“Some interesting details about the internal goings-on at the EPO during 2013 have recently come to light from insider sources,” one reader told us. “During 2013 a large amount of material critical of the upper management was circulating internally at the EPO. It seems that Battistelli’s infamous Investigative Unit was set up to investigate and suppress the distribution of such material.”
“During 2013 a large amount of material critical of the upper management was circulating internally at the EPO.”
–AnonymousWell, Streisand Effect sucks, doesn’t it? We now have that material, which we deem important enough to publish in order to present context for the crackdown on Judge Corcoran (who almost definitely had nothing whatsoever to do with the letter).
A sample of this material which was sent to the Vice-President of DG5 (Raimund Lutz) in June 2013 is shown above. The envelope addressed to VP5 contained a photo of the EPO senior management team with a series of sarcastic captions.
The photo shows the following individuals (from left to right):
1. Alberto Casado (at the time VP2, now VP1)
Caption: Der spanische Trottel
(“The Spanish idiot”)
2. Raimund Lutz (VP5)
Caption: “Der Nazi-Offizier – Nazi-Abteilung”
(“The Nazi Officer – Nazi Department”)
3. Benoît Battistelli (President)
Caption: “Le Roi Soleil – L’OEB c’est moi”)
(“The Sun King – I am the EPO”)
4. Željko Topić (VP4)
Caption: “Der Autodieb”
(“The car thief”)
5. Guillaume “Willie” Minnoye (at the time VP1, now retired)
Caption: “Der grobe belgische Bauer”
(“The uncouth Belgian peasant”)
6. Wim van der Eijk (at the time VP3, now legal member of the Boards of Appeal)
Caption: “Der Ja Sager”
(“The Yes-Man”)
Battistelli’s “Nazi”-fixation seems to come from this kind of material which depicted Lutz, the Vice-President in charge of legal matters, in very unflattering terms as a “Nazi Officer” in charge of the “Nazi Department”. By some kind of weird projection mechanism it seems that Battistelli decided to take revenge on his perceived enemies inside the EPO by smearing them as “Nazis”. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A lot more is being revealed by the media this week (regarding the EPO’s “war on judges”) and now that it’s a more ‘mainstream’ subject we can shed light on the background to it
Background/overview of EPO affairs is essential for getting more people actively involved. We’re aware that many people out there don’t know (or don’t care) what happens at the EPO. They don’t even know that it’s the second-largest European institution. Many don’t even realise that it exists. Over here there’s a cross-section of the population which is up in arms over the European Commission, angered by relatively small ‘scandals’ while turning a blind eye to much bigger scandals.
The latest scandal was covered in 5 articles yesterday, namely:
- ILO is ‘Forcing’ Team Battistelli to Compensate the Banned Judge and Give Him Back His Job
- Meanwhile in Eponia, Tyrant Battistelli Must be Seeking Advice on How to Refuse to Obey Court’s Orders (Again)
- ILO Said Give the Judge His Job Back, But Christoph Ernst’s Administrative Council Will Likely Let Him Go (Unemployed)
- Less Than 24 Hours Later the EPO Already Refuses to Obey Court Orders From ILO (Updated)
- Battistelli’s EPO is Once Again Caught in Very Gross Violation of the European Patent Convention (EPC)
“The ILO is alive,” said one blog post, “but are the boards too,” a comment continued/inquired.
Here is that comment:
“The board of Appeal Member turned up for work today and the head of EPO security told him that she was under instructions from ”above” to disregard the court order, and he will not be allowed in any EPO buildings”
Should it be true that this judge is not allowed to resume his activity as a member of the boards for at least the period of time he still had to serve when he was suspended, his colleagues of the boards should immediately stop working until the AC has reinstated the rule of law.
Otherwise they would definitely disqualify themselves as judges, and provide even more grounds for the Federal Constitutional Court to deny constitutionality of the european patent procedure for lack of a truly independant judiciary.
The next (and last) comment explained that whatever the EPO does/did to the judge may be a death blow to UPC. To quote:
Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.
Title says it all really. The only way that the UPC could have survived these decisions is if the EPO had immediately followed them in full *and* reappointed the judge. With this on top of the decision of the Enlarged BoA in case no. Art. 23 1/16, I really don’t see how the German Constitutional Court could ever find that the BoA are in any way judicially independent.
For those who haven’t read them yet…
Decision 3958: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3958&p_language_code=EN
Decision 3960: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.fullText?p_lang=en&p_judgment_no=3960&p_language_code=EN
There’s deep juridical deficit and profound disregard for the principles of the Rule of Law at the EPO, so how can anyone entrust/assign the EPO to deal with “unitary” effect? That would be insane, not just irresponsible.
And speaking of UPC, don’t mind British Team UPC going on about the supposed ‘progress’ in the UK. Even a longtime UPC proponent (Michel Barnier) serves to debunk these people. A British journalist has just said (in effect rebutting this jingoism from Robinson): “The line about the UPC being part of negotiations also puzzling. I was informed by a spokesperson for Barnier that the UPC was not an EU institution therefore not part of the exit negotiations.”
Obviously not. It’s just a lot of noise from Robinson et al lately, among unfortunate admissions that he’s being disingenuous/dishonest (thread) and proud to be self-deluding (as even people from the same sector as him regularly allege). But anyway, we digress.
“There’s deep juridical deficit and profound disregard for the principles of the Rule of Law at the EPO, so how can anyone entrust/assign the EPO to deal with “unitary” effect?”Ireland, which canceled (or ‘indefinitely postponed’) its UPC referendum, has finally caught up with the above scandal (not just the EPO fiasco in general). Yesterday at night we found the latest EPO scandal in Irish media (Irish Times). The Irish media too is now naming Patrick Corcoran. The Register (now with 30 comments on the subject) was the first to do it, in effect ‘unmasking’ him. Desirable or not? We have known the name for a number of years, but we chose to prevent associating the name with the bogus accusations. Perhaps now that ILO sides with Corcoran it will be simpler for the public to accept that he’s innocent.
The Irish Times says that “Mr Corcoran’s central complaint was the EPO president, Mr Battistelli, played a key role in the decision to suspend him and to later continue the suspension. He argued that Mr Battistelli was not a “neutral and disinterested party” because he was the subject of the alleged defamatory attacks.”
Well, in a functioning society he’d be in a straightjacket somewhere. He’s clearly under-qualified (he doesn’t even speak the local language, he lacks education in the domain he deals with and so on) and he turned the pride of Europe — probably world’s best patent office — into the shame of Europe. He did this in just a few years.
To quote further from the Irish Times, which is understandably sympathetic towards Corcoran:
Mr Corcoran argued this was a “manifestly flawed opinion, which was tainted with bias and which breached the principle of due process.
“The president had a personal interest in the matter, and thus should have recused himself before rendering such opinion on account of a real or apparent conflict of interest.”
According to documents disclosed to the ILO tribunal, the EPO’s internal investigative unit alleged Mr Corcoran had, using a pseudonym, made defamatory statements that Mr Battistelli had attempted to “buy votes” by hosting delegates.
It alleged Mr Corcoran also sent a letter to the deputy mayor of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in France, where the president was a town councillor, accusing Mr Battistelli of abuse of power at the EPO.
The tribunal accepted Mr Corcoran’s argument that Mr Battistelli should not have had a decision-making role in the suspension because he was the subject of the alleged defamation.
It said Mr Battistelli had a conflict of interest and said the administrative council erred in not making a ruling to this effect. It said the matter should have instead been handled by the EPO’s second most senior official.
Another new article on the subject comes (again) from IPPro Patents and it’s unique in the sense that it quotes the Central Staff Committee:
The ILO said the situation “casts doubt on the president’s impartiality”. [What an understatement!]
Battistelli is due to leave his post as president of the EPO in mid-2018, but has recently attempted to push through major reforms, including the replacement of permanent employment contracts with five-year fixed term contracts.
In its letter, the CSC said that, prior to the publication of the ILO judgments, “the president of the office managed to convince the administrative council to convene two exceptional budget and finance committee meetings in order to enable him to get his latest proposed reforms approved before the end of his reign”.
It concluded: “The ball is now with the administrative council, which urgently has to answer the following question: should these reforms be left to a president and team having such a record of performance?”
We would like to share with readers some background to this ‘case’. It is connected to another ‘case’ (Els Hardon, a prominent SUEPO official) and has similarities to it, including the bogus “armed Nazi”-themed accusations (Nazi salutes, so-called ‘snipers’ and so on). It’s based on a bunch of lies and the purpose is to distract from real, legitimate abuses of Team Battistelli. The “Nazi” smear is designed only to discredit the so-called ‘whistleblowers’ (if that’s the right term).
“There was also the picture of Željko Topić’s stolen car in the EPO parking. I can’t say who took that one, but I wouldn’t be surprised that it’s a part of the story.”
–Anonymous“I think that this is the real background to the Hardon/Corcoran affair,” one reader once told us. “From what I can piece together Corcoran was communicating with Hardon stuff on Željko Topić, essentially the articles in the Balkan press. What was communicated, and how it was sent isn’t clear, but from what I heard, it was private communication.
“The material hardly found an audience beyond the INTERNAL, password-protected SUEPO forum. There was juicy stuff [e.g. the Zagreb newspaper articles], but nothing beyond what has come out since, and this forum could hardly be qualified as “public”. These idiots don’t realise that the public enjoying the EPO dirty laundry must have grown a thousand fold since the scandal began.
“There was also the picture of Željko Topić’s stolen car in the EPO parking. I can’t say who took that one, but I wouldn’t be surprised that it’s a part of the story.
“The SUEPO forum went offline exactly at the time the storm began, and never returned since. Coincidence?
“The SUEPO forum went offline exactly at the time the storm began, and never returned since.”
–Anonymous“This is what they called “publication of defamation”, and probably the reason why Battistelli was actually unable to put together a case before the BOA, but could only provide [falsifiable] data on an USB stick. They would have indicted themselves more than the accused. They must have been somehow hoping that the EBA would have understood what was expected of them.
“As to who said what to whom when, we’ll probably never know.”
Thankfully, the BOA/EBA didn’t fall for it.
“One version of the story I heard,” our reader continued, “is that Battistelli and Željko Topić were attempting to destroy Els Hardon, which explained the targeted intelligence gathering, and Patrick Corcoran merely happened to be collateral damage. Corcoran’s mistake was to use an internal computer for private communication with Hardon, or accessing the SUEPO forum from work. Another version of the story I heard in the initial phase of the scandal is that the EPO public WLAN access points are compromised, and Corcoran used an unencrypted connection from his personal laptop.”
We now know a lot more about the nature of that surveillance.
“So in a sense,” our reader continued, “Corcoran “did” something, but probably nothing which could be sanctioned under actual libel laws before a real court, especially if the information was 1) true and 2) transmitted privately or to a limited audience, and/or 3) previously published elsewhere.”
“Željko Topić’s henchmen realised through their snooping that something was happening, and the Croatian bully went ballistic. Thus the particularly nasty cases against Corcoran and Hardon.”
–AnonymousThis information had been widely circulated long before that. Years in fact. We saw it too.
Our reader said that “Željko Topić’s henchmen realised through their snooping that something was happening, and the Croatian bully went ballistic. Thus the particularly nasty cases against Corcoran and Hardon. Battistelli and Željko Topić did not even stop a minute to ponder the damage they would inflict upon themselves — and the EPO.
“One or two years earlier there was another period when the SUEPO forum went offline for several months, officially because of a software problem.
“The traffic on the server was mostly in French, and you had some idea of who was posting. It was lively, and much read within the office, but, as usual, most of the posting was done by relatively few members.
“I understand that the earlier eclipse had something to do with another scandal you probably haven’t heard of, and for which all evidence was effectively suppressed. It happened about a decade ago.
“The more is known about these scandals, the more likely it is that law will be upheld and the right people held accountable.”“Someone merely ALLUDED on the forum at the events and the culprit, without actually naming him. The party got wind of this and got on his high horses. He threatened legal action before a German court, with full support of the EPO management. [He is still well in place in the Office]. But a defence would have involved divulging internal information — that’s VERBOTEN — and the enquiry results were unavailable anyway, so the best attitude was to retreat. And I can’t imagine the party going to court and saying “I’m the SOB they’re actually referring to on that squalid little forum”… Without any documentary evidence, [which I naturally hope to lay my hands on one day], it’s pointless to even explain the story as I heard it.”
If someone has more information about that, please do get in touch with us. The more is known about these scandals, the more likely it is that law will be upheld and the right people held accountable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA