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

02.14.18

The EPO Now Censors the Central Staff Committee Like It Used to Censor SUEPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Censorship is escalating and going even further, not too long after EPO management was accused of suppressing another publication of the Central Staff Committee

Minnoye MAGA
Welcome to Bavaria’s version of North Korea

Summary: The EPO’s Central Staff Committee (CSC) is now being treated as poorly as SUEPO several years ago (when it was threatened to remove publications from its site or face severe action)

“The EPO is currently censoring the publication on the Intranet of a CSC open letter to the Members of the Board 28,” which does not surprise us at all. It’s not the first time and it is becoming a pattern or the norm.

Here is the cover text of the CSC letter:

The CSC submitted an open letter to the Heads of Delegations of the Administrative Council as it appears that the “Modernisation of the EPO’s employment framework” is on the agenda of the B28 meeting on 30 January 2018 for opinion.

In short – the necessary and requested (by the AC) consultation process with your staff representation worth the name is not taking place.

The rat-race to ever higher production is still ongoing and is furthered by the management. The potential additional contract framework adds another powerful tool to this. Such management methods have been qualified as “particularly disruptive”, such practices must be considered methods of the past.

In the last AC meeting, the German delegate explained concretely why such a contract scheme would not be adopted in her own Patent Office, showing that permanent posts may be a modern, successful alternative, allowing for attractiveness, workforce planning and motivation.

Any decision-making should entail a thorough, bona-fide, examination of alternatives, in particular the grounds justifying their introduction as well as their impact on the EPO finances and on the social climate.

This is why we appeal to the Delegations not to rush into deciding anything on the basis of the insufficient information provided by the current Administration and to allow the next President to deal with the matter at the right pace and in the framework of a genuine social dialogue.

The full CSC letter is similar but not identical to the above, so we’re including it as follows:

To the Members of the Board of the
Administrative Council

OPEN LETTER

Modernisation of the EPO’s employment framework – Dangerous rush

Date: 26.01.2018

Dear Heads of Delegations,

It appears that the “Modernisation of the EPO’s employment framework” is on the agenda of the B28 meeting on 30 January 2018 for opinion.

With the exception of a three-hour ViCo just before Christmas, no further consultation has taken place and no additional information at all has been given to the Staff representation since the December meeting of the Administrative Council, when CA/121/17 was tabled. A consultation process worth the name is not taking place.

The President has now set targets for 2018 which are currently cascaded down to all examiners. For the large majority of examiners these targets are hardly achievable without compromise. Setting such unrealistic targets is not due to any miscalculation. It is intended. Several DG1 Directors admit – off the record, of course – that they are fully aware that most individual targets are unachievable, but they allocate them nevertheless. Increased targets will also burden an already fragile staff in patent administration. At the same time, the recent streamlining of the professional incompetence framework contributes to an atmosphere of distrust and fear and the Office structure has otherwise been shaped so as to discourage any behaviour but submissiveness.

France Telecom, a French company formerly including civil servants with lifetime job employment workforce, precisely used such management methods, including consciously tasking staff with duties they could not fulfil. At the same time the number of suicides increased dramatically.


Having since then been qualified as “particularly disruptive”1, such practices must be considered methods of the past.

We already drew your attention to the many problems caused by previous reforms. In the current context the proposed “modernisation”, especially the introduction of non-permanent contracts, would exacerbate the problems and expose an even more vulnerable group of staff (contract staff) to the above harmful policies.

The Council is ultimately responsible for the results of the policies put in place. We fear for the most tragic consequences, should the Council not properly discharge its duty of care towards EPO staff. The Delegations of the host countries obviously have particular responsibilities in that respect.

In the last AC meeting, the German delegate explained concretely why such a contract scheme would not be adopted in her own Patent Office, showing that permanent posts may be a modern, successful alternative, allowing for attractiveness, workforce planning and motivation.

The proposed “modernisation” introduces readily applicable additional means for pressuring staff. It will also have far-reaching, long-term, effects on the culture and the functioning of the Office, which have not been touched yet. True social dialogue, and decision-making, should entail a thorough, bona-fide, examination of alternatives, in particular the grounds justifying their introduction as well as their impact on the EPO finances and on the social climate.

This is why we appeal to you not to rush into deciding anything on the basis of the insufficient information provided to you by the current Administration and to allow the next President to deal with the matter at the right pace and in the framework of a genuine social dialogue.

Sincerely yours,

Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
cc.: Mr B. Battistelli; President of the EPO

____
1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/business/global/10ftel.html

Team Battistelli has already been silencing or threatening staff representatives for 'daring' to speak about declines in patent quality. What they are trying to hide is simply truth itself. As one new comment put it a couple of days ago:

As an Examiner, I wish to report, that every director I had said, that being able to reach the set target (and in my case it was never negotiated, despite the rules requiring so) within the time available is also quality of examiner’s work.
Hence, my production (grants/refusals/searches) is thmain ingredient foor the quality of my work.
The quality measured under the ISO 9001 is irrelevant, as long as I meet my target.
If I fail to meet my target, good quality measurements (CASE statistics) will not help me. Low quality will additionally be used against me. But so far I’ve not met one who got a low score for quality in her/his appraisal when the target was met, no matter what the CASE statistics said…. And this practice has been confirmed by ILOAT as being okay.
Hence my production appears twice in my appraisal, and the CASE measured quality actually only if my production is low and the quality measured is low…

But since we measure our colleagues quality, and they measure mine, we never had a need to record everything. The second member simply found the “non-conformities”…

A lot of supposed ‘growth’ also comes from granting of software patents, albeit under different labels. Following our article about Bastian Best's obsession with the blockchain hype in relation to European Patents we found former ‘Kat’ David Pearce responding to Best with: “Given that the first EP application with ‘blockchain’ in the title was only published in 2015, this is hardly surprising. [] Also, the basics of blockchain technology are based on open source, unpatented (and most likely unpatentable), inventions. [] So I would not expect to see much of any significance from the EPO Boards of Appeal for a few years at least, and even then it’s likely just to restate the position following T 641/00.”

It’s also worth noting that there’s now a new article about lack of motivation among examiners, who — in order to just keep their jobs — need to operate in ‘drone’ mode:

In summary, I am not sure whether the EPO’s “vision” of a motivated staff matches with current reality. While many examiners and Board of Appeal members genuinely like their work, I have yet to find one who tells me that (s)he feels motivated by the current management, whilst many tell me the opposite. It seems to me that the current management focusses far too much on delusional and senseless objectives such as “raising production targets” every year and on “challenging staff”, rather than positively motivating it to work together towards a common goal, i.e. the public weal.

The EPO is becoming so oppressive that it now gags not only the staff union that is detached from the EPO but also the EPO’s very own staff representatives. Welcome to North Korea?

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 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  2. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  3. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  4. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  5. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  6. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  7. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  8. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  9. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  10. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  11. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  12. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  13. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  14. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  15. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  16. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  17. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  18. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  19. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  20. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  21. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  22. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  23. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  24. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  25. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  26. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  27. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  28. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  29. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  30. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day


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