03.19.21

EPO and Microsoft Collude to Break the Law — Part XIV: When is a Conflict of Interest Not a Conflict of Interest?

Posted in Europe, Fraud, Microsoft, Patents at 8:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previous parts:

Bill Gates and Campinos

Summary: Could the EPO’s increasing reliance on Microsoft involve a conflict of interest?

If Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty had ever managed to visit the bizarre “Wonderland” of the EPO he might have been tempted to formulate a new riddle along the lines of: “When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest?”

“To begin with there is Microsoft’s chequered history of data protection infractions, anti-trust violations and US FCPA investigations.”The answer, it seems, is: “When it involves the EPO”.

At any rate, this kind of paradoxical “logic” fits the bill when it comes to the EPO’s increasing reliance on Microsoft as a provider of IT products and services.

The casual observer looking at the situation from the outside might reasonably conclude that there are a whole host of legitimate concerns including strong indications of an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

To begin with there is Microsoft’s chequered history of data protection infractions, anti-trust violations and US FCPA investigations.

But even if one were inclined to ignore all that, there is a more fundamental problem.

To put it in a nutshell: due to the company’s position as a significant player in the global IP arena, Microsoft’s role as a key IT provider to the EPO seems to be tainted by an inherent conflict of interest.

The situation might not be so precarious if Microsoft was simply a purveyor of computing hardware or a vendor of client-end data processing software for on-site data processing under the control of the EPO.

But the company’s role at the EPO has now expanded far beyond that to the provision of cloud-based data processing services, including the processing of much if not all of the EPO’s internal communications via Outlook, Microsoft Teams and Skype for Business.

What we have here could be described in simple terms as the large-scale export of operational data, including internal e-mail and video-conferencing communications, from the EPO to an external data processing infrastructure owned by and operated under the control of Microsoft.

It doesn’t need an MBA from the Harvard Business School to realise that placing such sensitive internal operational data directly into the hands of a significant player in the global IP arena is a highly questionable undertaking.

Based on its track record to date, EPO management will undoubtedly defend its actions by arguing that Microsoft can be trusted to “do the right thing”.

Microsoft will undoubtedly “do the right thing”. The only question here is “the right thing for whom?”

Remember that we are talking here about a private for-profit business corporation with a well-documented track record of engaging in anti-competitive practices and other ethically dubious activities. Can any sane person be realistically expected to trust a company with such an egregious track record of data protection infractions, anti-trust violations and US FCPA investigations?

There should be more than enough warning signs here to set off alarm bells in the competent centres of oversight and governance. However, going by Steve Rowan’s recent communiqué, nobody in the upper echelons of EPO management seems to be particularly worried.

Unfortunately, past experience over the last decade and a half has shown that the EPO doesn’t deal with conflict-of-interest situations very well.

The rot seems to have really set in (for good) back in 2009 when the Administrative Council voted to appoint its then Chairman, Battistelli, as the executive head of the Office. At the time in question, Battistelli was an elected representative for a political party in France, which should have automatically disqualified him from holding such a position in an international organisation. But the Administrative Council remained oblivious to this glaring conflict of interest.

According to the internal EPO rumour mill, Battistelli had his successor as Chair of the Administrative Council, the Danish delegate Jesper Kongstad, quite literally “in his pocket”. Kongstad reportedly received a secret “emolument” from Battsitelli’s HR department in the form of the equivalent of an EPO principal director’s salary — a generous monthly tax-free sum of five-figure proportions.

One of Battistelli’s first moves as President of the Office was to procure the abolition of the independent Audit Committee which reported directly to the Administrative Council.

It’s highly ironic that one of the intended functions of the Audit Committee was to advise the Administrative Council about potential conflicts of interest. Now that it has been disbanded, there is no longer anybody around to warn the Council.

Given this background, it’s not really surprising that the increasing reliance of the EPO on Microsoft as an IT provider hasn’t generated any visible concern in the ranks of the organisation’s senior management and governance bodies.

Microsoft bribe
Did “foreign corrupt practices” play a role in the award of EPO contracts to Microsoft? The opacity of the tendering process makes it difficult to give an answer to such questions.

Another remarkable aspect of the present case is the total opacity of the process that led to the award of the contract or contracts for cloud computing services to Microsoft.

It’s not clear how much these contracts are worth and whether they were put out to public tender, or whether they were allocated by “direct award”.

We also don’t know who exactly was responsible for the internal vetting of these procurement decisions, although it seems fair to assume that they were ultimately approved and signed off by the President of the Office, António Campinos.

Whether or not Campinos was properly advised in the matter is of course a completely different question.

Readers of Techrights may recall that back in 2015, reports were circulating ([1] and [2]) about a programme of “closer cooperation” between the EPO’s senior management and some of its leading corporate applicants, in particular Microsoft.

This arrangement attracted a lot of criticism at the time and many people quite rightly questioned whether it was appropriate for the EPO to be engaging in what amounted to a favourable treatment of large multinational corporations like Microsoft.

The recent expansion of Microsoft’s business relationship with the EPO has caused some people to speculate about whether the latest developments might not have been influenced by a further programme of “enhanced cooperation” involving “foreign corrupt practices”.

It is important to emphasise that there is currently no hard evidence of any “kickbacks” or “slush funds” operated by Microsoft at the EPO. For the moment, any such suggestions are based purely on speculation.

On the other hand, Microsoft’s well-documented track record in other jurisdictions means that such speculation cannot be dismissed as completely off the wall.

Cxcel issue
The EPO is plagued by an entrenched culture of opacity and non-accountability which makes a credible investigation into suspected irregularities almost impossible

However, the problem here is that the EPO is plagued by such a deeply entrenched culture of opacity and non-accountability that if these procurement decisions had in fact been tainted by corruption, it is highly unlikely that this would ever be investigated and exposed, especially if any members of the senior management were involved.

It is doubtful whether the EPO’s internal investigative procedures are really fit for purpose in such cases, and there is no external anti-corruption agency which would be competent to take appropriate action.

To sum up, we are left with a situation in which procurement decisions have been made at the EPO which effectively place sensitive internal operational data directly into the hands of an external IT service provider based in the US and subject to the laws of that jurisdiction — including the US CLOUD Act of 2018.

In addition to this, the IT service provider in question happens to be a significant player in the global IP game.

At the same time, none of those who bear the ultimate responsibility for these procurement decisions seem to have the slightest concern about what appears to be a clear-cut case of a conflict of interest.

As Lewis Carrol’s Alice might have said, “curiouser and curiouser!”

In the final part of the series we will consider whether the EPO’s increasing reliance on cloud computing services hosted by Microsoft has effectively led to a sell-out of the organisation’s “digital sovereignty”.

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

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2021/03/19/epoleaks-report-march-2021-part-14/

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. OpenSUSE Hates Your Freedom, But It Loves the Proprietary Software Reseller That Is the True 'Master' of OpenSUSE

    OpenSUSE is inclusive of Microsoft and other companies that attack human rights and [cref 141916 enable nationalists]; but apparently what bothers OpenSUSE very, very much is the people who started the operating system SUSE is selling



  2. Links 12/4/2021: Lagrange 1.3.2, Linux 5.12 RC7

    Links for the day



  3. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, April 11, 2021

    IRC logs for Sunday, April 11, 2021



  4. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door

    The Benoît Battistelli-António Campinos shuffle left some people in the EPO’s upper management better off; they’re being rewarded for complicity, so there’s no incentive to do the right thing but to do the wrong thing



  5. Links 11/4/2021: GnuPG 2.3.0, Linux 5.13 Additions

    Links for the day



  6. All EPO Articles Are Available Over Gemini Protocol

    For lighter and more privacy-preserving access to Techrights use the Gemini capsule instead of the Web site



  7. Judge and JURI

    The Committee on Legal Affairs, a.k.a JURI, meets the EPO tomorrow (in 24 hours); will abuses by António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli be brought up?



  8. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…

    Before becoming an absent-minded Vice-President of António Campinos Christoph Ernst was posing as the very opposite of what he would become



  9. Gemini Gateways for IPFS

    The World Wide Web is fine for a lot of things, but for controversial publications and publications that invoke the 'wrath' of corporations/states/plutocracy we must look beyond the traditional protocols, choosing decentralised means and self-hosted means of publication (instead or at the very least in conjunction)



  10. Challenging Times for EPO Management

    A discussion of the status quo at Europe's second-largest (but scarcely-understood) institution, subjected to a JURI hearing tomorrow afternoon



  11. “The Fighters of Freedom”

    Some anime fans have made this video about recent events



  12. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, April 10, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, April 10, 2021



  13. [Meme] Bundestagate Series Spoiler

    The chain of command/s at the EPO typically leads to major tragedy



  14. Breaking News: Campinos to Appear Before the Legals Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on Monday 12 April

    "Some MEPs have been briefed about ongoing governance deficits at the EPO, in particular the lack of GDPR compliance and the sell-out of "digital sovereignty" to Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will dare to bring these issues up during the hearing."



  15. Pro-FSF Petition (“An Open Letter in Support of Richard Matthew Stallman Being Reinstated by the Free Software Foundation”) Tops 6,200 Signatures

    Monopolies and their media, along with their NGOs, have spoken and incited based on falsehoods; people now respond so the hate letter has a real crisis



  16. Links 10/4/2021: osbuild 28, KDE Frameworks 5.81.0

    Links for the day



  17. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 12: A Worthy Successor to His Mentor?

    We examine the role of Christoph Ernst in EPO management, both in the Benoît Battistelli era and the António Campinos era (plenty to hide)



  18. USPTO for Monopolies, Keeping GNU/Linux in the Dark

    Growing evidence of gross discrimination against GNU/Linux (or Free software, even BSD/UNIX) users at the USPTO is too hard to ignore; some people out there challenge the Office over this travesty



  19. Accessibility and Availability First

    To make Techrights more widely accessible and more difficult to block/censor we've been making further changes, including self-hosting where possible



  20. Self-Hosting Videos With Free Formats and Animated Previews, Watermarks/Logos and Translucency

    We examine the power of video editing with ffmpeg, chained with command-line scripting and HTML5 features



  21. Links 10/4/2021: Linux on M1, Wine 6.6, ClamAV 0.103.2

    Links for the day



  22. Lunduke: On Mob Justice in the Tech Industry

    A new video from the former Microsofter who fears the phenomenon that’s adopted by companies like IBM



  23. IRC Proceedings: Friday, April 09, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, April 09, 2021



  24. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli's Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli

    Local copies with evidence of or something concrete about Benoît Battistelli’s connection to unsavoury — and by today’s standards outright fascistic — politics



  25. IBM Doubles Down on Masters Being an Acceptable Word in the Context of Technology

    3 days after this post which disproves IBM's stance or shows its double standards it once again says “Masters” in its official blog (won’t that offend and alienate some people as they insist?)



  26. Hate Letter Against Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) Backfired So Spectacularly That Signers Asked to Revoke Their Own Signatures and the List Was Then Frozen Permanently (Updated)

    "An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation" tops 6,100 signatures (graph generated just moments ago)



  27. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 11: The BMJV's Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst

    The right-hand man of António Campinos plays a role similar to that of Herr Lutz before him



  28. Links 9/4/2021: Tanglet 1.6.0 and HPVM 1.0

    Links for the day



  29. The Libel Against Richard Stallman Did Not Age Well

    Almost 2 years down the line libel about the founder of the FSF remains online, uncorrected (in sites funded by Microsoft and IBM)



  30. The Letter in Support of the FSF and Richard Stallman is Backed by the International Community, Not American Monopolies and Nationalistic Elements

    Free software is for everybody to use, internationally, it is not the asset of a bunch of current and old monopolists (connected to the US military) that also control the media; the nature of the signatures says that out loud


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