11.29.18
Union Syndicale Fédérale Tells António Campinos to End ‘Political’ Cases Against EPO Staff Representatives
Summary: Having failed to make a positive first impression, Campinos is now kindly asked to stop union-busting and silencing of staff representatives; “amnesty should be envisaged” for those who have been subjected to abuse, Union Syndicale Fédérale recommends
THE European Patent Office’s (EPO) promotion of software patents in Europe is a daily routine; we cannot even emphasise strongly enough that it got a lot worse under António Campinos (compared to Battistelli, under whom it hadn’t been done as much). As one EPO blog has just put it: “President Campinos seeks to increase its power even beyond what “sun-king” President Battistelli had.” (we will say more about this separately, in our next post and later we’ll focus on software patents in Europe as well).
SUEPO has just published German and English translations of a letter we mentioned earlier this week. It was in French, the mother’s tongue of Campinos (his mother is French and he was born/studied in France). SUEPO’s English translation [PDF] shows Bernd Loescher (Union Syndicale Fédérale) speaking about the rulings from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation*. Here it is as HTML:
Brussels
26 November 2018
To: Mr. Campinos
Mr. President,
The Union Syndicale Fédérale is perfectly aware of the serious difficulties created at the EPO in numerous spheres of activity by your predecessor. Matters relating to union members at the EPO have been widely presented in the media over the past six years. The recent rulings by the Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (proceedings of the 126th session) as well as the proceedings before the national German courts, provide details which are now widely accessible to the public at large.
Some union members have been acquitted, while others are still awaiting the results of internal procedures or proceedings brought before the Tribunal.
The lengthy nature of these proceedings necessarily raises the issue of the individual suffering caused to these union members and the effectiveness of the system of appeals at the EPO.
The USF takes the view that sufficient details of the matters still unresolved at the EPO are known, and these are sufficient to conclude that these conflicts are essentially political in nature, and not of a disciplinary nature.We therefore propose, both in the interests of the new President of the EPO as well as of the blameless parties concerned, and in the general interest of social dialogue at the EPO, that an amnesty should be envisaged rapidly by the President of the EPO for the whole of the matters of a political nature.
With our respectful regardsDr. Bernd Loescher
USF PresidentCC: Mr. Michels
We should meanwhile note that the patent maximalists’ propaganda site Managing IP, a routine booster of the UPC, has just published “The 50 most influential people in IP” [sic], crowning/highlighting António Campinos as “Most influential people in IP” [sic].
Yes, well… it helps to have a violent and corrupt compatriot like Battistelli exchanging seats and swapping influence. █
_____
* There were more rulings from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation yesterday and it’s our understanding that at least 3 outcomes were favourable to staff, but we await informed analysis, which typically comes from those better familiar with the cases and background to them (it’s hard to guess based on the pertinent decisions alone).
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Anton_P said,
November 30, 2018 at 5:40 am
In the 127th ILO session, there was only one EPO case. Here is a quote:
“In the present case, as noted earlier, the members of the
Medical Committee were divided in their opinion before the experts
were consulted. Dr S. and Dr B. were of the opinion that the
complainant’s invalidity was of an occupational origin. After the
experts delivered their report, Dr S. indicated that he had changed his
mind. His altered opinion was contrary to the opinion of the experts.
However, in his writings before the medical opinion was acted on, and
in the opinion itself, he did not refer to the experts’ report. The Tribunal
infers that Dr S. did not, at a minimum, give earnest and substantial
consideration to the views of the experts before the issuing of the
medical opinion, as he should have and, necessarily, did not provide
cogent and compelling reasons for rejecting their views. In this respect,
he failed to perform his duties as a member of the Medical Committee.
Similarly, Dr K. did not provide cogent and compelling reasons before
the medical opinion was issued, or in the opinion, for rejecting the
views of the experts, in breach of his duty as a member of the Medical
Committee.”