02.21.21

Gemini version available ♊︎

For the Record: SUEPO’s Correspondence With ‘King’ António Campinos

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Contrary to what “Orange Man” says, the staff union told staff the truth and does not need to apologise to anyone (let alone retract any statements)

THE STAFF Union of the EPO (SUEPO) has been doing a very fine job for at least a decade. We’ve seen many SUEPO publications. They’re all polite and courteous. They’re professional. Unlike Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, who end up shouting at people to compensate for their incompetence and insecurity (temper issues are associated with low self-esteem or a lack of self control, which is a weakness, not a strength).

“Don’t believe the lies from Campinos. SUEPO told the truth.”Many EPO insiders, some of whom have spent decades of their lives working for the EPO, yearn for the days the Office was run by competent individuals, appointed based on their skills rather than based on their connections. And who can blame them? In my personal experience, scientists always prefer to be managed by scientists because if the manager understands the staff (on a technical level) there’s decreased chance of misunderstandings, unrealistic expectations, and workplace harassment (typically hiding from an inherent disconnect). The poison inside the Office — some say “cancer” or “tumour” (yes, EPO staff habitually uses those exact words as analogies) — is a cabal of people who don’t know what the heck they’re doing. They want the public to think that scattering or pouring out there a growing batch of low-quality patents (i.e. unjustified monopolies) is “success” or “growth” or “production” (remember that monopolies and manufacturing are profoundly different things, which mustn’t be conflated or mistaken one for the other). This wheelbarrow of papers does no good for Europe. That much has been repeatedly demonstrated by scholars across Europe (at least those not corrupted by EPO bribes).

EPO queenTechrights strongly and categorically supports SUEPO. Everything we’ve been seeing from SUEPO is consistent with sincere commitment to EPO staff, even at personal risk at times (and collectively a risk to one’s family).

Don’t believe the lies from Campinos. SUEPO told the truth. SUEPO did what it promised to do for its members. It informed them. Battistelli tried really hard to demonise SUEPO (comparing them to “Nazis” and violent things like “snipers”), but tribunals outside the EPO repeatedly sided with SUEPO. Because they had the opportunity to examine actual evidence (or a lack of it).

To end this series we’d like to post (for the public record) the full correspondence from and to SUEPO. The person in charge of SUEPO handles the situation calmly, unlike the ‘wicked witch’ who is rumoured to be behind these repressive/oppressive actions (not the first situation of this kind).

First, here’s the message sent by Campinos to not only caution SUEPO but basically threaten SUEPO (notice the use or misuse of the English language, torturing words like “management” to say “colleagues” instead, even when referring to just one individual).

It is dated 10 Feb 2021.

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

To the Chairman of SUEPO Central

via email: xxxxxxxxxxx

Date: 10.02.2021

SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’

Dear Mr Chair,

On 4 February, SUEPO published a letter regarding the situation of one of our colleagues and their line manager.

It is abundantly clear that red lines have been crossed in this publication. It constitutes not just an attack on two of our colleagues, but also on the values of the Office and all its staff. I am therefore writing to inform you of the gravity with which this publication – and your decision to publish it – is now being treated.

First and foremost, it is our assessment that the letter questions the ethics and integrity of one of our colleagues, merely for representing and expressing the views of the Office in joint meetings. I would like to underline, that whatever communication efforts or tactics are made by a union in the pursuit of its goals, we, as an Office, will not accept actions that have a detrimental effect on the dignity or reputation of any individual staff member. Moreover, in taking this approach in this latest publication, SUEPO is creating a climate in which colleagues may be fearful of public attack, simply for faithfully executing their professional duties.

Secondly, the letter publicly implies by insinuation that the management is responsible for the colleague’s situation. Not only is this categorically untrue, and even libellous, it is an attack on the reputation of the entire organisation, its professionalism and its values.

I accept fully that during the course of our duties, we can naturally expect different views, and even criticisms. You will be very much aware that staff representation and unions enjoy a wider freedom of expression in this respect. Encouraging such a plurality of views is what makes our organisation stronger. It ensures that the views of all our colleagues are heard and that we can try to move forward as a more cohesive Office.

However, like with any other freedom, there are boundaries. As already stated by the Tribunal, “any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible”. As international civil servants, we are expected to provide the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. In our organisation we also adhere to the standards of respect, dignity, and tolerance, especially given the different backgrounds, profiles and nationalities which all constitute part of the richness of our organisation.

I have also repeated on several occasions the specific importance of trust, fairness and mutual respect, especially in social dialogue. And finally, from our own Service Regulations, “an employee shall at all times treat others, inside and outside the European Patent Organisation (…) with professional respect and discretion”. This means not only respect for others as human beings, but also respect for their functions and for their professionalism.

For all the reasons above, your publication has clearly crossed a number of critical boundaries. You will understand that as a public organisation, the Office must take every measure to protect its staff and its reputation. I am therefore writing to request that SUEPO makes a public retraction of its letter, removes the letter of 4 February from its website and issues a letter of apology to the two colleagues concerned, by 15 February 2021.

Following these measures, we will be able to continue a constructive working relationship, and to work on the issues that we have started to address. As you are well aware, in times of pandemic, it is even more important to be strong together and to act within the basic fundamental principles of decency, politeness and respect.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxx

Just like in ’1984′ (the book), they ask staff to remove truthful information and then, moreover, apologise (to those whom they said the truth about). The EPO did this to me several times via aggressive law firms, which they wasted EPO budget on. If that’s not bad enough, they claim to respect some sorts of values which they clearly violate (nepotism is one manifestation of that) and talk about respect in the same way Code of Conduct proponents do (wherein only those at the top are shielded from the rules they wield, so it’s an asymmetric power relation, favouring the enforcers). They speak of the “reputation of our organisation” as if management itself isn’t the culprit; to them, those who point out what’s going on are the real issue. They never had “genuine and constructive dialogue” as they merely listen (or barely listen) but never take into account, let alone implement, any proposals from staff representatives. They say they wish to “protect all colleagues from such public attacks” while weaponising Dutch and German media to defame judges, notably Judge Corcoran. The immense hypocrisy and the double-standards to be noted in this letter are seemingly endless. We could go on and on…

SUEPO’s letter dated 14 Feb 2021:

14 February 2021
su21005cl – 0.3.1

To: Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR–Room 1081

Your letter of 10 Feb concerning SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’

Dear Mr President,

In your letter you raise concerns regarding the SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 published on the internal SUEPO website. We were surprised by the tone of your letter and the assertion that red lines have been crossed.

Following receipt of your letter we have reviewed our publication, but are unable to find any passage which in our opinion is factually wrong or would even go beyond the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

Therefore, in order to clarify the situation, we would like to ask you to indicate those particular passages which raised your concerns.

We are ready for an open dialogue on this issue as soon as possible, at the latest in our meeting scheduled for 24 February 2021.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxx

Chairman of SUEPO Central

Campinos to SUEPO on 16 Feb 2021 (same day he publicly shamed them in the Office intranet and simultaneously sought to drive a wedge between SUEPO and the CSC):

Date: 16.02.2021

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

To the Chairman of SUEPO Central

via email: xxxxxxxxxx

RE: Request to retract SUEPO publication of 4 February 2021 ‘Salary Adjustment Procedure 2020: Loss of Head in Directorate Compensation & Benefits’

Dear Mr Chair,

On 10 February, I wrote to you to request that SUEPO retracts a letter it published on 4 February. As you will recall, your public letter concerned the situation of one of our colleagues and their line manager.

Following that publication, I urged you respectfully to retract the statement because it had, very clearly, crossed a number of red lines in attacking the professionalism and reputation of our mutual colleagues and also the reputation of the Office. It included claims that are not just categorically untrue, they could also be considered libellous. However, I also underlined that we would be able to continue normal working relations were you willing to retract the statement by 15 February at the latest.

With your letter of 14 February 2021, besides a proposal to discuss the topic during a meeting on 24 February 2021, we have only received a request for clarification, even though my original letter to you explained in no uncertain terms the nature of the problem. We are convinced that SUEPO is fully aware of the problematic aspects of the publication, and the damaging effects it would have on our colleagues and on the reputation of our organisation.

We are therefore disappointed to see that there has been no visible or meaningful attempt to retract the statement, or apologise to the colleagues concerned. To the contrary, SUEPO has shown its willingness to attack in public colleagues who partake in social dialogue of any kind, whether with the CSC or with SUEPO itself.

As you must be aware, it is our duty to protect all colleagues from such public attacks. I have therefore asked our services to implement a period of three months from 16 February during which all social dialogue with SUEPO will be carried out by written exchange only. The Office will therefore not be fielding representatives to meet with SUEPO either in person or online during this period. At the end of the three months the decision will be reviewed.

Despite the necessity to take this measure, the Office remains committed to pursuing a genuine and constructive dialogue. Our colleagues throughout the EPO expect us to make progress on social dialogue as quickly and as constructively as possible – but also do so in an atmosphere of respect and professionalism.

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxx

CSC letters were published in a previous part.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 21/10/2021: MX Linux 21 and Git Contributors’ Summit in a Nutshell

    Links for the day



  2. [Meme] [Teaser] Miguel de Icaza on CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Our ongoing series, which is very long, will shed much-needed light on GitHub and its goals (the dark side is a lot darker than people care to realise)



  3. Gemini Protocol and Gemini Space Are Not a Niche; for Techrights, Gemini Means Half a Million Page Requests a Month

    Techrights on gemini:// has become very big and we’ll soon regenerate all the pages (about 37,500 of them) to improve clarity, consistency, and general integrity



  4. 'Satellite States' of EPO Autocrats

    Today we look more closely at how Baltic states were rendered 'voting fodder' by large European states, looking to rubber-stamp new and oppressive measures which disempower the masses



  5. [Meme] Don't Mention 'Brexit' to Team UPC

    It seems perfectly clear that UPC cannot start, contrary to what the EPO‘s António Campinos told the Council last week (lying, as usual) and what the EPO insinuates in Twitter; in fact, a legal challenge to this should be almost trivial



  6. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States

    How unlawful EPO rules were unsurprisingly supported by Benoît Battistelli‘s friends in Baltic states; António Campinos maintained those same unlawful rules and Baltic connections, in effect liaising with offices known for their corruption (convicted officials, too; they did not have diplomatic immunity, unlike Battistelli and Campinos)



  7. Links 21/10/2021: GIMP 2.99.8 Released, Hardware Shortages, Mozilla Crisis

    Links for the day



  8. How Oppressive Governments and Web Monopolists Might Try to Discourage Adoption of Internet Protocols Like Gemini

    Popular movements and even some courageous publications have long been subverted by demonisation tactics, splits along unrelated grounds (such as controversial politics) and — failing that — technical sabotage and censorship; one must familiarise oneself with commonly-recurring themes of social control by altercation



  9. [Meme] Strike Triangulations, Reception Issues

    Financial strangulations for Benoît Battistelli‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations”? The EPO will come to regret 2013…



  10. [Meme] Is Saying “No!” to Unlawful Proposals Considered “Impolite”?

    A ‘toxic mix’ of enablers and cowards (who won’t vote negatively on EPO proposals which they know to be unlawful) can serve to show that the EPO isn’t a “social democracy” as Benoît Battistelli liked to call it; it’s just a dictatorship, currently run by the son of a person who actually fought dictatorship



  11. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 20, 2021



  12. [Meme] EPO Legal Sophistry and Double Dipping

    An imaginary EPO intercept of Administrative Council discussions in June 2013...



  13. Links 21/10/2021: PostgreSQL JDBC 42.3.0 and Maui Report

    Links for the day



  14. [Meme] [Teaser] “Judge a Person Both by His Friends and Enemies”

    Fervent supporters of Team Battistelli or Team Campinos (a dark EPO era) are showing their allegiances; WIPO and EPO have abused staff similarly over the past decade or so



  15. 'Cluster-Voting' in the European Patent Office/Organisation (When a Country With 1.9 Million Citizens Has the Same Voting Power as a Country With 83.1 Million Citizens)

    Today we examine who has been running the Finnish patent office and has moreover voted in the EPO during the ballot on unlawful "Strike Regulations"; they voted in favour of manifestly illegal rules and for 8.5 years after that (including last Wednesday) they continued to back a shady regime which undermines the EPO's mission statement



  16. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki's Accord

    The Finnish outpost has long been strategic to the EPO because it can help control the vote of four or more nations; evidence suggests this has not changed



  17. [Meme] Living as a Human Resource, Working for Despots

    The EPO has become a truly awful place/employer to work for; salary is 2,000 euros for some (despite workplace stress, sometimes relocation to a foreign country)



  18. Links 20/10/2021: New Redcore Linux and Hospital Adoption of GNU Health

    Links for the day



  19. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 19, 2021



  20. Links 19/10/2021: Karanbir Singh Leaves CentOS Board, GPL Violations at Vizio

    Links for the day



  21. [Meme] Giving the Knee

    The 'knee' champion Kratochvìl and 'kneel' champion Erlingsdóttir are simply crushing the law; they’re ignoring the trouble of EPO staff and abuses of the Office, facilitated by the Council itself (i.e. facilitated by themselves)



  22. Josef Kratochvìl Rewarded Again for Covering Up EPO Corruption and the EPO Bribes the Press for Lies Whilst Also Lying About Its Colossal Privacy Violations

    Corrupt officials and officials who actively enable the crimes still control the Office and also the body which was supposed to oversee it; it's pretty evident and clear judging by this week's press statements at the EPO's official Web site



  23. [Meme] Sorry, Wrong Country (Or: Slovenia isn't Great Britain)

    Team UPC is trying to go ahead with a total hoax which a high-level European court would certainly put an end to (if or when a referral is initiated)



  24. How Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden Voted on Patently Unlawful Regulations at the EPO

    We look back and examine what happened 8 years ago when oppressed staff was subjected to unlawful new “regulations” (long enjoyed by António Campinos, the current EPO autocrat)



  25. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc

    We start our investigation of how countries in northern Europe ended up voting on the unlawful “Strike Regulations” at the EPO and why



  26. Proof That Windows “11” is a Hoax

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  27. Firefox Becomes as Morally Reprehensible as Apple, Facebook, or Uber

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  28. Links 19/10/2021: GNU dbm 1.22 and Godot 3.4 RC 1

    Links for the day



  29. [Meme] [Teaser] GitHub an Expensive and Dangerous Trap (Also: Misogyny Hub)

    The ongoing Microsoft GitHub exposé will give people compelling reasons to avoid GitHub, which is basically just a subsidised (at a loss) trap



  30. Norway Should Have Voted Against Benoît Battistelli's Illegal (Anti-)'Strike Regulations' at the European Patent Office

    Benoît Battistelli‘s EPO faced no real and potent opposition from Norwegian delegates, who chose to abstain from the vote on the notorious and illegal so-called ‘Strike Regulations’ (they’re just an attack on strikes, an assault on basic rights of labourers)


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

Recent Posts