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. Sirius Not-So-‘Open Source’: Cannot Talk to Colleagues, Cannot Speak About Work

    Cover-up and lies became a corporate pattern at the company where I had worked since 2011; it was time to go in order to avoid cooperation in unethical activities



  2. [Meme] Guilt by Association

    Sirius ‘Open Source’ has a history of hostility towards people with disabilities; the company got sued over this, but kept the lawsuit secret



  3. That Time Sirius 'Open Source' Fired a Blind Lady While Gagging Sympathetic Staff

    Sirius 'Open Source' was taken to court after it had wrongly fired a couple of employees, one of whom was blind; this was accompanied by lies about why the staff's communication server was shut down



  4. Links 05/12/2022: Gnoppix Linux 22.12 and Armbian 22.11

    Links for the day



  5. Unified Patent Court (UPC) is “Real Soon Now!” Since 2014

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobby is once again forced to admit issues and delays; we've seen this time and time again for nearly a decade already



  6. Unified Patent Court (UPC) 'Delayed' Again, As Usual, as Unitary Patent Boosters Caught Up in Lies and Scandals

    “UPC [is] delayed by 2 months,” a source has told us, dubbing it “good news” and reaffirming what we’ve said this past year; this litigation lobby's 'wishlist' system isn’t legal, it’s not ready, there are yet more scandals, and journalists have been catching up with these scandals



  7. Links 05/12/2022: GStreamer 1.21.3

    Links for the day



  8. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, December 04, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, December 04, 2022



  9. Links 04/12/2022: Status of the 15-Minute Bug Initiative

    Links for the day



  10. When a Company Simply Refuses to Talk to Technical and Exerienced Staff Through Internal Avenues

    When companies behave like monarchies where staff has no role at all in decision-making and decisions are made in violation of those companies’ tenets (or mission statements) it is inevitable that staff will issue concerns, first internally and — failing that — in other channels



  11. [Meme] Kings Instead of Open Consultation Among Peers

    In Sirius there’s no room for debate, even among half a dozen or so technical colleagues; decisions are made in the dark by a tightly-knit cabal (with rather childish superhero cartoons as their avatars) and then imposed on everybody else (hardly democratic, not sane)



  12. Sirius Open Source: The Home of Stress and Bullying by Management

    Part 3 of a report regarding Sirius Open Source, which is imploding after bad judgement and misuse of power against employees



  13. Links 04/12/2022: Fosshost Shudown and OpenIndiana Hipster 2022.10

    Links for the day



  14. Links 03/12/2022: pgAdmin 4 Version 6.17

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, December 03, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, December 03, 2022



  16. Office Manager in Company Without an Office

    Imagine having an “Office Manager” in a company that does not even have an office. Welcome to corporate posturing.



  17. Dishonest Companies Disguised as 'Open Source' (After Abandoning It)

    A deeper look at the way Sirius Open Source presents itself to the public (including prospective and existing clients); This is clearly not the company that I joined nearly 12 years ago



  18. When the Founder of Your Company Supports Donald Trump the Company Ends up Active in Fascist Platforms

    Politics weren’t allowed in Sirius ‘Open Source’, but there were exceptions for some people (close to management) and it didn’t look good



  19. [Meme] Sirius Actually Used to Promote Free/Libre and Open Source Software

    Before people who reject Free/Libre and Open Source software were put in charge of Sirius ‘Open Source’ concrete steps had been taken to support the wider community (or the suppliers, who were mostly volunteers)



  20. Sirius 'Open Source' When It Actually Understood and Respected Software Freedom

    The company my wife and I joined was (at the time) still Free software-centric and reasonably friendly towards staff; today we examine Sirius of a decade ago



  21. Links 03/12/2022: 4MLinux 41, GNOME E-mail System Melting Down

    Links for the day



  22. Links 03/12/2022: KDE Report and Canonical Lying to Staff

    Links for the day



  23. Sirius 'Open Source' Lists 49 Firms/Organisations as Clients But Only 4 of Them Currently Are

    Sirius Open Source is nowhere as popular as it wants people to think



  24. Sirius 'Open Source' Lists 15 People as Staff, But Only 6 Work in the Company

    Sirius Open Source is nowhere as big as it wants people to believe (like it is a trans-Atlantic thriving firm, the “Sirius Group”)



  25. Storm Brewing Over the Future and Nature of the Internet

    Subsidies for Web giants (and shareholders of such giants) will run out; what will happen to the Internet when this inevitably happens?



  26. IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 02, 2022

    IRC logs for Friday, December 02, 2022



  27. 10 Good Things That Happened in 2022

    In the technical domain, 2022 saw some positive developments, especially from the perspective of Freedom-centric and environmentalist folks



  28. Rumour: More Microsoft Layoffs (Big Layoffs) Next Month

    TheLayoff.com, a moderated forum for anonymous voices, has a new comment (less than a day old) about more Microsoft layoffs



  29. Engineers Are Too Expensive for Sirius 'Open Source'

    Sirius Open Source has become almost like a one-man operation, occasionally assisted by associates (external to the company, paid as contractors by the hour), and management that neglects basic duties while it lies to the staff in an effort to ‘pacify’ it



  30. A December Series About the Demise of Sirius 'Open Source'

    Sirius has not been functioning properly for years, but this year it got a lot worse and the story ought to be told; there are many aspects in it that may be applicable to other companies, including those that engage in openwashing for marketing purposes (opportunism)


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