04.16.21

Gemini version available ♊︎

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 20: Taking Stock

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 12:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

  1. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 1: How the Bundestag Was (and Continues to be) Misled About EPO Affairs
  2. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 2: Lack of Parliamentary Oversight, Many Questions and Few Answers…
  3. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 3: A “Minor Interpellation” in the German Bundestag
  4. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 4: Parroting the GDPR-Compliance Myth
  5. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 5: The Federal Eagle’s Disconcerting Metamorphosis
  6. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 6: Dr Petri Starts the Ball Rolling…
  7. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 7: Ms Voßhoff Alerts the Bundestag…
  8. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 8: The EPO’s Tweedledum, Raimund Lutz
  9. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 9: A Veritable Virtuoso of Legal Sophistry
  10. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 10: A Faithful Lapdog Despised and Reviled by EPO Staff
  11. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli’s Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli
  12. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 11: The BMJV’s Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst
  13. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 12: A Worthy Successor to His Mentor?
  14. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…
  15. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door
  16. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 15: Different Strokes for Different Folks
  17. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 16: An Inimitable Duo
  18. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 17: Jawohl, Herr Minister!
  19. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 18: Zero Tolerance for “Lawless Zones”?
  20. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 19: The Deafening Silence of the Media
  21. You are here ☞ Taking Stock

Ernst revolving door
Has the EPO degenerated into a self-service gravy train for those at the top?

Summary: Benoît Battistelli‘s legacy at the EPO is a legacy of corruption and cover-up; we take stock of how illegality was defended and persists to this day

In this series we saw how Dr Thomas Petri, the Bavarian State Data Protection Commissioner, and his federal counterpart, Ms Andrea Voßhoff, expressed concerns about serious deficiencies in the EPO’s data protection framework in 2014.

“Regrettably, as we have seen, their efforts were frustrated by the intrigues of a Tweedledum-Tweedledee duo, comprising EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz and Christoph Ernst, an official of the German Justice Ministry who was also the head of the German delegation on the EPO’s Administrative Council at the time in question.”We also saw how press coverage in June 2015 about the deployment of covert surveillance measures at the EPO by Battistelli’s notorious “Investigative Unit” prompted Ms Voßhoff to bring these concerns to the attention of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag.

These conscientious and public-spirited officials responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of German and EU privacy law did their best to push for a reform of EPO’s data protection framework to ensure compliance with contemporary European standards.

Regrettably, as we have seen, their efforts were frustrated by the intrigues of a Tweedledum-Tweedledee duo, comprising EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz and Christoph Ernst, an official of the German Justice Ministry who was also the head of the German delegation on the EPO’s Administrative Council at the time in question.

“The actions of this duo led to a situation in which not only the Federal Government but also the Bundestag and the German public were misled about the true state of affairs at the EPO.”The evidence on record suggests that Lutz and Ernst acted in a malfeasant and self-serving manner in order to sabotage the laudable efforts of Dr Petri and Ms Voßhoff to reform the EPO’s manifestly deficient data protection framework.

Lutz and Ernst
The suspected villains of the piece: Raimund Lutz and his protégé and successor, Christoph Ernst

The actions of this duo led to a situation in which not only the Federal Government but also the Bundestag and the German public were misled about the true state of affairs at the EPO.

However, neither Lutz nor Ernst suffered any sanction for these actions which appear to have been highly detrimental to the interests of all EPO stakeholders, including EPO staff, applicants and the general public.

On the contrary, a few years later as Ernst approached the statutory retirement age for public officials in Germany, he was “rewarded” by his buddies on the Administrative Council with a cushy little sinecure as the next EPO Vice-President for International and Legal Affairs.

This shrewd end-of-career move secured him a handsome five-digit tax free monthly salary for the next five years, i.e., until the age of 70.

Apologists for EPO mismanagement will no doubt try to dismiss these allegations against Ernst and his mentor Lutz as “ancient history” because they relate to events which took place back in 2015.

But the reality is that very little has changed since then.

Maas on a plane
The EPO echo chamber effect continues to encroach into the domestic political arena in Germany.

As noted in the introductory parts of this series, the same EPO echo chamber effect attributable to Ernst and Lutz back in 2015 can also be seen in operation much more recently, namely in the responses of the German government to parliamentary questions about the EPO which were submitted in 2019 and 2020.

“The events which have been covered in this series suggest that this malaise affects not only the European Patent Office as such but also extends to the Administrative Council, which is perceived to exist in an unhealthy and incestuous symbiosis with the senior management of the Office.”The only difference to the situation in 2015 is that Christoph Ernst is no longer at the German Ministry of Justice but is now sitting at the helm of the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs as the successor of his mentor, Raimund Lutz.

It has been claimed by critics of the EPO – both inside and outside – that systematic abuses of the organisation’s immunity and autonomous legal status – which reached unprecedented levels during the Battistelli era – have caused this once proud “model international organisation” to degenerate into a rather grubby little self-service gravy train for those at the top.

The events which have been covered in this series suggest that this malaise affects not only the European Patent Office as such but also extends to the Administrative Council, which is perceived to exist in an unhealthy and incestuous symbiosis with the senior management of the Office.

Over the last decade or so the Council – which is supposed to act as the governing and supervisory body of the organisation – has come to operate more and more as a self-serving clique of national civil servants whose activities are only nominally subject to ministerial oversight.

Indeed, if the German example covered in this series is anything to go by, some of the Council delegates seem to have become adept at pulling the wool over the eyes of their supervising Ministers.

It is important to note that the Administrative Council’s exercise of its supervisory role is seriously compromised by the fact that the Council stands in a relationship of “absentee ownership” to the European Patent Office (to borrow a phrase from the American economist and sociologist, Thorsten Veblen).

Thus, the national IP Offices represented on the Council reap the rewards of the EPO’s work – to the estimated tune of a grand total of EUR 611 million in 2021.

At the same time, in their capacity as “absentee owners” whose personal fiefdoms – i.e. the national IP Offices – benefit in an effortless manner from this arrangement, the Council delegates bear no apparent liability for the decisions that they take – or fail to take – in their capacity as members of the supervisory organ of the EPO.

Indeed, in recent years the impression has been given that this closed circle of “absentee owners” became so preoccupied with divvying up the spoils which can be extracted from the EPO that they completely lost sight of the need to pay attention to the proper governance of the organisation.

Maas wants money
The political masters of the EPO – both in Germany and throughout the contracting states – appear to be primarily concerned with maintaining and increasing the lucrative cash flow from the “Dukatenesel”.

At the same time, the political masters of the Council delegates – both in Germany and throughout the EPO’s contracting states – appear to be primarily concerned with maintaining and increasing the lucrative cash flow from the “Dukatenesel”. This in turn requires a high volume of granted patents.

“In addition to this, a whole host of matters of vital importance from the perspective of “good governance” have been ignored or dismissed as irrelevant over the past decade.”However, the obsessive fixation on the “bottom line” and the misguided pursuit of “profit maximisation” at all costs have produced highly deleterious effects on the overall well-being of the organisation.

In addition to this, a whole host of matters of vital importance from the perspective of “good governance” have been ignored or dismissed as irrelevant over the past decade.

Such matters include compliance with data protection and other generally recognised legal standards and the provision of a properly functioning internal justice system to protect staff from the excesses and abuses of a cynical and tyrannical management.

Beneficiaries of the current system like Lutz and Ernst try to justify this patently unsatisfactory state of affairs by pontificating about the right of the EPO “to make its own internal law independent of and deviating from the law of the contracting states and the EU”.

But in propagating their perverse apologetics for the Council’s failures, these virtuosos of legal sophistry ignore the fact that the EPO’s autonomous legal status does not absolve the members of the Administrative Council from observing and respecting internationally recognised legal principles and standards, including those relating to data protection.

All of the EPO’s contracting states are members of the Council of Europe and they have all subscribed to the principles of data protection adopted and endorsed by that body.

The European Patent Organisation should not be permitted to arbitrarily deviate from these principles on the basis of dubious legal sophistry promulgated by certain individuals in pursuit of their own hidden agendas and personal ambitions.

“In the year in which the Council of Europe and its member states commemorate the 40th anniversary of Convention 108, there really is no excuse for the shameful failure of the EPO’s Administrative Council to provide the organisation which it purports to govern with a fully GDPR-compliant data protection framework.”In conclusion, it is worth recalling that Convention 108 which laid the foundation of contemporary European data protection law was opened for signature by the Council of Europe on 28 January 1981, which is celebrated as European Data Protection Day.

In the year in which the Council of Europe and its member states commemorate the 40th anniversary of Convention 108, there really is no excuse for the shameful failure of the EPO’s Administrative Council to provide the organisation which it purports to govern with a fully GDPR-compliant data protection framework.

“As long as the contracting states continue “duck away” from their international obligations in this regard (to borrow a phrase from Heiko Maas), it would be naïvely optimistic to expect that any effective action will be taken to remedy the problems which have been identified in the present series.”Unfortunately, there is at present no sign of the political will which would be required to rectify the situation – neither inside the EPO’s Administrative Council nor at a ministerial level in the contracting states, which – under the terms of the EPC – remain the ultimate guarantors of the proper functioning of the organisation and its compliance with the rule of law.

As long as the contracting states continue “duck away” from their international obligations in this regard (to borrow a phrase from Heiko Maas), it would be naïvely optimistic to expect that any effective action will be taken to remedy the problems which have been identified in the present series.

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. [Meme] EPO Budget Tanking?

    While the EPO‘s António Campinos incites people (and politicians) to break the law he’s also attacking, robbing, and lying to his own staff; thankfully, his staff isn’t gullible enough and some MEPs are sympathetic; soon to follow is a video and publication about the EPO’s systematic plunder (ETA midnight GMT)



  2. EPO.org (Official EPO Site) Continues to Promote Illegal Agenda and Exploit Ukraine for PR Stunts That Help Unaccountable Crooks

    epo.org has been turned into a non-stop propaganda machine of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos because the EPO routinely breaks the law; it’s rather tasteless that while Ukrainians are dying the EPO’s mob exploits Ukraine for PR purposes



  3. [Meme] EPO Applicants Unwittingly Fund the War on Ukraine

    As we’ve just shown, António Campinos is desperately trying to hide a massive EPO scandal



  4. EPO Virtue-Signalling on the Ukrainian Front

    António Campinos persists in attention-shifting dross and photo ops; none of that can change the verifiable facts about the EPO’s connections to Lukashenko’s 'science park' in Minsk



  5. Links 19/05/2022: PostgreSQL 15 Beta 1 and Plasma 5.25 Beta

    Links for the day



  6. A Libera.Chat Anniversary and Happy Birthday (Maybe the Last) to 'Leenode'

    What became known as the so-called ‘Leenode’ is a cautionary tale, but maybe it is also a blessing in disguise because IRC as a whole seem to have become a lot more decentralised (as everything should be)



  7. Links 19/05/2022: The Gradual Fall of Netflix/DRM

    Links for the day



  8. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 18, 2022

    IRC logs for Wednesday, May 18, 2022



  9. Links 18/05/2022: Qt Company Loses Chief; OpenSUSE Leap Micro 5.2 and RHEL 9 Final

    Links for the day



  10. Jim Zemlin's Wife is Funded by Puppies (Microsoft)

    Jim Zemlin — like his wife — is bagging millions from Microsoft, but that’s clearly a conflict of interest for the Linux Foundation



  11. Links 18/05/2022: More Defections From WordPress to Gemini

    Links for the day



  12. Links 18/05/2022: PikaScript and cURL's Annual User Survey

    Links for the day



  13. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 17, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 17, 2022



  14. Phoronix: Microsoft and Phoronix Sponsor (and Close Microsoft Partner) AMD All Over the Place

    When you’re taking massive 'gifts' from AMD (and also some from Microsoft) maybe it’s not surprising that editorial decisions change somewhat…



  15. EPO Has No F-ing Oversight

    Earlier today SUEPO mentioned this new article demonstrating that EPO President António Campinos can very obviously and blatantly violate the Code of Conduct of the Office without facing any consequences; there are translations too, so the report is now available in four languages



  16. [Meme] Linux-Rejecting Foundation

    The Linux Foundation never really leads by example; by default, it uses proprietary software



  17. Linux Foundation Almost Never uses Open Source

    The Linux Foundation uses proprietary software (look where they hire and take money from) and be sure they're probably not even aware of it



  18. Links 17/05/2022: Many More Games on GNU/Linux, YaST Development Report

    Links for the day



  19. Links 17/05/2022: Rocky Linux 8.6 and Budgie Desktop in Fedora

    Links for the day



  20. Patent Examiners Rising Up Against EPO Abuse

    Unhappy with the law-breaking autocracy (the EPO‘s management breaks the law as a matter of routine), fast-deteriorating working conditions and rapidly-decreasing quality of work (or lack of compliance with the law), workers have escalated further, topping off strikes and industrial actions with a large-scale petition



  21. [Meme] What Managers (Really) Mean by Acting Professionally

    The myth of 'professionalism' needs to die along with the façade of conformity as prerequisite for employment (Linus Torvalds can work just fine in a bathrobe in his own home)



  22. Internal Poll: 93% of European Patent Office (EPO) Workers Are Unhappy With the EPO

    On top of strike/s and industrial action/s there are now also petitions; at the EPO, almost all staff is "disgruntled" because of utterly corrupt and defunct leadership



  23. Links 17/05/2022: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Release Candidate

    Links for the day



  24. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 16, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 16, 2022



  25. Links 16/05/2022: FreeBSD 13.1 and Inkscape 1.2 Released

    Links for the day



  26. Archiving Latest Posts in Geminispace (Like a Dated Web Directory But for Gemini)

    Earlier today we saw several more people crossing over from the World Wide Web to Gemini; we're trying to make a decent aggregator and archive for the rapidly-expanding Geminispace, which will soon have 2,500 capsules that are known to Lupa alone



  27. Microsoft Vidal Does Not Want to Listen (USPTO is Just for Megacorporations)

    Microsoft Vidal knows her real bosses. They’re international corporations (multinationals like Microsoft), not American people.



  28. Links 16/05/2022: China Advances on GNU/Linux and Maui 2.1.2 is Out

    Links for the day



  29. Jim Zemlin: Chief Revenue Officer in 'Linux' Seat-Selling Foundation

    Board seats in the Linux Foundation are basically a product on sale, based internal documents



  30. Reminder: Linux Foundation's Last IRS Filing is Very Old (Same Year the CFO Left)

    People really need to ask the Linux Foundation, directly, why its filings are years behind; this seems like a sensitive subject


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