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

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


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