12.10.21
Gemini version available ♊︎The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXI: The Abstentionists
Series parts:
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part I: Let the Sunshine In!
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part II: A “Unanimous” Endorsement?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part III: Three Missing Votes
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IV: The Founding States
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part V: Germany Says “Ja”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VI: A Distinct Lack of Dutch Courage
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VII: Luxembourgish Laxity
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VIII: Perfidious Albion and Pusillanimous Hibernia
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IX: More Holes Than Swiss Cheese
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part X: Introducing the Controversial Christian Bock
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XI: “General Bock” – Battistelli’s Swiss Apprentice?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XII: The French Connection
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIII: Battistelli’s Iberian Facilitators – Spain
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XIV: Battistelli’s Iberian Facilitators – Portugal
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XV: Et Tu Felix Austria…
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVI: The Demise of the Austrian Double-Dipper
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki’s Accord
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XX: The Visegrád Group
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXI: The Balkan League – The Doyen and His “Protégée”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXII: The Balkan League – North Macedonia and Albania
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXIII: The Balkan League – Bulgaria
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXIV: The Balkan League – Romania
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXV: The Balkan League – Fresh Blood or Same Old, Same Old?
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVI: A Trojan Horse on the Budget and Finance Committee
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVII: Cypriot Complicity
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXVIII: Benoît and António’s Loyal “Habibi”
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXXX: The EPOnian Micro-States – Monaco and Malta
- The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXX: San Marino and the Perfidious Betrayal of Liberty
- YOU ARE HERE ☞ The Abstentionists
Record of the Administrative Council vote on the adoption of Battistelli‘s “Strike Regulations”.
Summary: Today — or tonight — we finally resume our long series which investigates National Patent Offices (NPOs) that voted on illegal proposals over the past decade or so
In the earlier parts of this series the focus was on the 28 delegations that voted in favour of Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.
In this part, we turn our attention to the small number of delegations that withheld their support from the manifestly unlawful proposal submitted to the Administrative Council by the EPO President for adoption in June 2013.
“It does happen on occasions that votes are cast against a proposal from the Office President but it’s a relatively rare occurrence. The more usual course of action for delegates who have reservations about a proposal is to abstain.”In the “Bizarro” world of EPOnia, the national delegates on the organisation’s governing body are remarkably slow to vote against measures proposed by the EPO President, no matter how flawed and misguided these may be. This is apparently due to the obscure unwritten rules of “diplomatic protocol” which determine how business is conducted in international intergovernmental organisations like the EPO.
“…not a single delegation actually had sufficient integrity and moral courage to vote against Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.”It does happen on occasions that votes are cast against a proposal from the Office President but it’s a relatively rare occurrence. The more usual course of action for delegates who have reservations about a proposal is to abstain.
An abstention is a mild expression of disapproval. Basically, it’s intended to signal that a delegation is unhappy with a proposal but doesn’t want to rock the boat too much.
As we already noted, not a single delegation actually had sufficient integrity and moral courage to vote against Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.
However, a total of seven delegations withheld their support by abstaining, namely: Belgium, Italy, Norway, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.
“In the next part we will begin with the delegation representing Belgium, the only one of the Benelux states that refrained from endorsing Battistelli’s liberticidal proposal.”Because Article 35 (4) of the European Patent Convention specifies that abstentions “shall not be considered as votes”, Battistelli could claim quite truthfully that his patently unlawful “Strike Regulations” had been endorsed "unanimously" by the Administrative Council.
In the upcoming parts we will take a closer look at the delegations that withheld their support from Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”. In the next part we will begin with the delegation representing Belgium, the only one of the Benelux states that refrained from endorsing Battistelli’s liberticidal proposal. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA