Like asking an umbrellas salesman about the upcoming weather
Reference: Peter Popoff
Summary: How patents-centric sites (some of which are in bed with the EPO) have responded to the ‘Brexit’ vote and why they’re not telling us the truth about the Unitary Patent scam (often created and promoted by the same people who run and/or fund such sites)
THERE’S increasingly strong evidence suggesting that Battistelli’s EPO is in a state of meltdown and lockdown (like an army base). It would be hilarious if this wasn’t so serious an institution (unlike FIFA), on which a lot of Europe’s future rests and where people’s lives are being severely ruined by one reckless manager who has a God complex. Recently, Battistelli’s biggest project caught on fire [1, 2] and the conspirators behind this project now rush to put out the fire (if they can). In this article we intend to show that this is still going on. Rebuttals are necessary if not imperative.
“Recently, Battistelli’s biggest project caught on fire and the conspirators behind this project now rush to put out the fire (if they can).”Putting aside some spammy press releases about newly-granted EPO patents (insiders say that patent quality significantly declined), let’s look at what UPC propagandists who are in the EPO’s (or Battistelli’s or the EPO's PR agency's) pocket say about ‘Brexit’. Their slogan right now is “keep calm and continue”. They are still trying to wish people’s way into the UPC (also in the UK!) even if it’s dead/dying as a whole. IP Kat, which spent years promoting the UPC (not Merpel but mostly her Bristows colleagues), published yesterday “A possible way for a non-EU UK to participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court?”
This wrongly assumes/insinuates that the Unitary Patent can happen (any time soon) without the UK.
Quite a few revealing comments are in there (regarding the bias of the audience on this matter, as a lot would personally benefit from the UPC at the expense of everyone else in Europe). We don’t wish to amplify the UPC promotion by quoting much from there, but to quote just one comment: “Self-serving wishful thinking at best, given that Prof. Tilmann is “member of the UPC Rules of Procedure Drafting Committee and of the Expert Group for the UPC Preparatory Committee” as well as being part of a legal profession eager (to put it mildly) to start work in the UPC.”
We wrote about Tilman Müller-Stoy’s letter two days ago. He has been part of a conspiracy of patent law firms that tried to pass the UPC. To quote another comment:
It is amazing how imaginative some members of the legal profession, starting with Mr Tilmann, try to avoid the consequence of the Brexit when it comes to the UP/UPCA.
I fully support the anon/Charley of 20.39BST when he considers Mr Tillmann’s position as self-serving wishful thinking at best. I have rarely seen such a pro domo statement.
The day Points 4,a) and 4,b) in the “way forward” will be implemented pigs will fly. Amending Art 84UPCA is a no go!
The same applies with point 4,d). Do you really think that the UPC is such a fundamental point that it will find its way in the Brexit agreement as it is wished here? Please come back on Earth.
What is superbly ignored here is Opinion 1/09. The UP and the UPCA is not open to non-member states of the EU. That is the end of any loop-hole for keeping the UK in the system be it before or after the actual Brexit (Art 50 Lisbon Treaty).
Anything else is not only wishful thinking but clear nonsense.
It is difficult to understand why “The IPKat is delighted to receive [such a] paper”. I am disappointed wíth IPKat in view of this statement.
“UPC without the UK might be opening a box of Pandora of new language-based arguments,” this one person explained (there’s plenty more in there) and “English is one of the 3 languages used for EU patents,” Benjamin Henrion argued yesterday. “This gives English-speaking companies competitive advantage” (see the article titled “The EU may drop English as their official language” in light of ‘Brexit’).
“To pretend that ‘Brexit’ has no implications and that the UPC would be just fine in spite of it isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s deliberately misleading and it puts patent law professionals in a bad light.”Don’t believe even for a second that everything is OK for the UPC. The UPC propagandists spent years telling us that it was unstoppable and inevitable, but guess who was realistic all along? We were actually right about their optimism being little more than a self-fulfilling prophecy strategy, which included setting up courts and advertising jobs before there’s any confirmation of UPC in the UK. What a bundle of scandals. What an utter attack on democracy, both European democracy and British democracy (what remains of it).
We are quite frankly fed up with all the UPC propaganda and we hope that people will realise that the UPC circles — those who stand to benefit from it — are not credible or reliable on this matter. They try to mislead the public and induce defeatism among their opposition. Watch FB Rice’s Steve Gledhill stating in his new ‘analysis’ that after ‘Brexit’ it is “Business as usual for IP rights” (to quote the title). The reality is, a lot is about to change, whether those who are in denial care to acknowledge it or not. “Despite the significant political upheaval Brexit has caused, it is business as usual for European IP rights,” Gledhill argues, but he does not deal specifically with UPC (probably because that would completely shatter the whole premise of his ‘analysis’).
“Dishonesty isn’t what people pay $400/hour for.”As a Remain supporter myself, I am not happy to see ‘Brexit’. We may be losing our competitive advantage soon (English going down the languages ladder, Ireland notwithstanding). To pretend that ‘Brexit’ has no implications and that the UPC would be just fine in spite of it isn’t just wishful thinking. It’s deliberately misleading and it puts patent law professionals in a bad light. Dishonesty isn’t what people pay $400/hour for. █
Send this to a friend
Rushing examiners, but at what cost? Lots for Battistelli to cherry-pick from…
Reference: Quality (business)
Summary: By lowering the quality of patents granted by the European Patent Office Battistelli hopes to create an illusion of success, where success is not measured properly and is assessed by biased firms which he finances
TECHRIGHTS has expressed deep and genuine concerns about the quality of EPO patents for quite some time (about half a decade, not just in relation to software patents). The growing threat is an irreversible decline in quality that would superficially elevate the number of granted patents (devaluing/diluting their value, especially older ones) just like at the USPTO (which many would agree is in a chaotic state when it comes to patent quality). More is not always merrier, especially when it comes to patent monopoly/protection. It’s not beneficial to innovation (over-patenting) and it often brings with it many false positives, i.e. patents erroneously granted, which leads to spurious demands, court cases, disputes, etc.
The following is a very sad story (also a rather long one) from an EPO patent examiner. This examiner openly (but anonymously, for his/her protection) admits quality has been ruined under Battistelli. Here is the comment in full:
Just to complete the picture since it appears everyone is shocked of how things are run when they become a bit public. My unfortunate reality is these reports do not deviate from the daily life in-house. I am an examiner. Or more accurately, I was an experienced examiner, I am now on the payroll. I was once proud of doing my job diligently. Maybe it is linked to the technical field, I used to examine diligently with a low rate of grants, even when compared to my close colleagues. Most files I examined were withdrawn when explained why they would not satisfy the technical and legal requirements. I refused the large part of the other applications and, amongst the refusals challenged all but one stood before the BoAs.
Following the procedure towards a sound refusal requires serious work and takes time. I was never processing high numbers of applications, average compared to colleagues, had no rapid career but was proud of my work. Sure cutting many corners would have provided me immediate financial advantages in terms of promotions but would have been at the expense of the public, the competitors and my pride. I don’t know which one mattered most. I never gave in anyway.
Things have changed over the last three years. Production targets were raised, colleagues were put in direct competition for steps and promotions. The collaborative work we used to do mostly vanished. I have tried to stay focused on my work and its quality. I was soon put under pressure of my direct boss for having a low “productivity” (some kind of bizarre calculation dividing a weighted sum of the times you pressed a button claiming a search report is out and of the times that an application is granted, refused, withdrawn or that the applicant stopped paying the renewal fees by the available working time. Unrelated to the amount of actual work done but use to promote and punish). Not that my “productivity” had changed but the ones of my colleagues went up dramatically (rat race for grabbing big bonuses) and I am now in the target line. My manager explained me that I needed to do 40% more productivity to stay out of trouble. I told him that it was totally unreasonable and the work could not be done this way. He assured me he knew that but had no margin and had to follow the orders.
I then reflected on the actions of my own government represented in the Administrative Council. They obviously do not care. Neither do most other countries. The very same goes for the public at large and applicants.
I decided to preserve my health, my family and stopped doing my job. This year I will deliver more patents than I have done over the last 10 years at least. I am going back home earlier, have longer coffee breaks and do not elaborate relevant technical and legal arguments anymore. I avoid citing pieces of prior art that are too relevant; citing an approximate document is enough to write a formal objection, wait for the answer and submit it to the colleagues. I do not believe they read anymore what they sign and everyone is happy. Not my pride. But the price is paid. Had I known I would have end up in such a situation, I could have acted this way much earlier to get promoted. It is hardly a secret that most of today’s managers reached their positions either by having extraordinary “productivities” or by escaping towards functions not having any “productivity” calculations. Ask examiners about ridiculous examples of patents granted by their managers!
I am now making most people happy: my manager, Mr. Battistelli, the Member States, the Administrative Council, the applicants, their representatives, my family. I can only be sorry for my lost pride, my lack of courage, the public at large for restricting freedoms, the competitors for the unfair competition, the taxpayers for the extra expenses of the judiciary, the consumers for the extra licensing costs and the reader because I am too verbose. Telling makes my sense of guilt more bearable.
This comment isn’t from some ‘rotten apple’ or an outlier. Judging by reactions to it (thus far), many people at the EPO feel the same way. “The recent slide in examination quality has been very clear to those of us who study cases carefully,” one person wrote. Here is the comment in full:
Thank you for your heartfelt confessional. You are not alone. The recent slide in examination quality has been very clear to those of us who study cases carefully. But not only in the sense of granting applications too easily. We are also seeing negative communications issued with virtually no serious analysis. Cite a few documents, cut and paste the standard paragraph about being routine for the skilled person – job done! The application will be shelved for the next two or three years, while the EPO continues to collect those juicy renewal fees.
Responding to the part which said “This year I will deliver more patents than I have done over the last 10 years at least,” one person writes: “It seems that the effects are starting to see.”
We have been warning about this for a very long time and the cited blog post we already mentioned here the other day. Here is an observation from another thread:
Some further thoughts.
A big jump in grants will lead to a big jump in oppositions, even without any change in “quality” of decisions to grant.
Oppositions, I understand, are priority 1, even more so after the proposed changes to procedure.
And yet I am seeing an increasing number of zombie applications [more than 10 years old] being brought into examination, sometimes with an examiner amendment on a Rule 71(3) notice. How are you finding time to deal with the long tail of old applications?
The response to it uses internal terminology, which suggests these are indeed EPO insiders who speak on the subject:
I too have seen an increase in re-surfacing zombies, generally where there has been an exam report many years ago. Often the exam report just required a response to a PCT Written Opinion, in the days before the present Rule 161.
As I understand it, such zombies would be priority 2 under ECfS, above starting new examinations. Presumably this is why Examiners are able to allocate time to them.
“Indeed,” notes a response to it. “Those examination dossiers where the applicant would not get a refund due to a first communication already having been sent are priority 2. The first action blocking a refund is, IMHO, a trigger for a higher priority I can stand behind. Finish startes [sic] files instead of having as many started as possible, which seemed to be the priority for some of my colleagues. If you ask for accelerated, or when the next comm. can be expected, the file is lifted up to priority 1.”
Meanwhile, in relation to the US system (where patent quality is rather appalling for reasons we have mentioned for a decade), Professor Dennis Crouch now shows that despite the number of patents almost doubling, “Certificates of Correction” remain at a similar number and are seemingly peaking this year. In Crouch’s words: “A substantial percentage of patents continue to pass through the post-issuance correction process that leads to a Certificate of Correction.”
He also wrote: “The number of corrections has remained relatively steady over the past 15 years. Since the number of issued patents issued has risen so dramatically during that time, this steady-state of correction filings means that the average number of corrections per recently issued patent has continued dropped steadily for the past decade with the odd exception of patents issued in 2009. About 14% of patents issued 1990 to 2005 went through the correction process. That percentage is now down under 10%.”
This is one indication of decline of quality control. Now, compare that to the number of appeals at the EPO (a subject previously explored here) and imagine what’s to come with increased appeal fees (reportedly to skyrocket), especially if Battistelli gets his way and altogether eliminates the appeal boards.
Responding to the original rant (from “1984″) about patent quality, one person wrote:
I totally agree with you, 1984 – and also share the same, big regret: I should have started earlier to send out…
Another person wrote:
Thank you, 1984, for expressing so accurately my own feelings! Both so funny and sad to think you may just be in another country or just next door. We will never talk about it, we will never know. If the word were to be spread on the identity of anyone talking, our families would be screwed. Not worth the risk of the institutional retaliation.
Then came a humorous response from “The Investigative Unit” [1, 2] and one person seemed befuddled by IAM (the EPO is still leaning on its IAM propagandists to pretend patent quality and service are fine). To quote:
What I find rather impressive is that the Epo keeps winning each and every patent quality survey. Not only are we the best of the world but in 2015 our quality greatly improved over 2014…
That’s nonsense. It’s IAM nonsense, i.e. the usual.
Here is one response to that:
Do you remember the fate of the Survey organized by the Office about the reform of the BoA?
The results were completely misrepresented by Battistelli to support his agenda – as a post by Merpel detailed.
Do you really expect El Presidentitssimo to report any negative results that do not fit his agenda?
Good luck with that.
“The results were completely misrepresented by Battistelli to support his agenda,” the above says, “as a post by Merpel detailed.” This is what we have come to expect from just about any ‘survey’ by and about the EPO. Follow the money, follow the invoices. We have. Battistelli’s expensive information war [1, 2, 3, 4] is hoping to distract from and discourage (e.g. by spying) messages like that from “1984″. Truth/objectivity is not allowed at today’s EPO and Battistelli runs his Ministry of Truth, just like in the book “1984“. █
Send this to a friend
Buying the media and even panels to mislead the public about UPC still not enough?
Like “Unitary patent” or “EU patent” or “Community patent”: Not unitary, not for the EU, not for the community, or whatever euphemism they’re using this year in corruptible (for sale) media
Summary: The corporate coup which Benoît Battistelli is spearheading at the expense of the EPO’s very existence has gone way too far (and become far too expensive), especially now that he publicly admits that it might never actually materialise and his misguided vision might never happen
THE Frenchman Benoît Battistelli is destroying the EPO. It’s no wonder so many people, especially his own employees (including some in management), want to get rid of him but don’t know how. He has become an existential risk to the EPO, for reasons we shall cover in the rest of the weekend (due to lack of time). Some believe that he wants to be the head of the UPC, potentially a replacement of many of the functions which exist presently (but not for much longer) at the EPO. Under Battistelli, for example, patent quality has been severely harmed. He destroys the entire appeals process (to hide this decline in quality) which might be gone soon, unless he’s sacked or steps down. ‘Production’ the ENA way doesn’t take into account quality, just short-term profit, which is being thrown away at propaganda and festivals which glorify Battistelli. This might be expected from sports and celebrities (like FIFA), but not from an inherently scientific institution like the EPO.
“This might be expected from sports and celebrities (like FIFA), but not from an inherently scientific institution like the EPO.”Earlier this month we showed how Battistelli had wasted MILLIONS of Euros* to generate puff pieces such as this new one from India (no research/investigation required, just copy-pasting the PR). James Nurton, who ‘interviewed’ Battistelli several months ago (softball questions), now does a puff piece about the whitewashing/lobbying event, demonstrating yet again that journalism, especially ‘professional’ journalism (i.e. salaried), is driven by high agenda (like interests of subscribers) rather than reality. UPC pushers were given the same platform yesterday, presumably under the assumption that people who would profit from the UPC know it best. In comments at The Register “BREXIT” is alluded to as a possible solution, one day after The Register published a piece chastising the FT (Financial Times) for its UPC puff piece, essentially advancing a gateway to patent trolls, software patents and everything that’s rogue in the megacorporations-leaning USPTO. Battistelli has apparently been paying British media (Financial Times) for UPC propaganda under the guise of events coverage.
The level of disgust at this stage is very high and it’s directed not only at Team Battistelli but also the journalists whom Battistelli essentially passed money to (can we say “bribed”?) in order for them to become his mouthpieces.
“The level of disgust at this stage is very high and it’s directed not only at Team Battistelli but also the journalists whom Battistelli essentially passed money to (can we say “bribed”?) in order for them to become his mouthpieces.”Yesterday we found patent lawyers (i.e. people who can profit from the chaos UPC would generate) offering ‘analysis’ (advocacy) of the UPC [1, 2, 3]. But Europe is more than just “IP [sic] lawyers,” to use the term from WIPR‘s headline. The interests of Europe and of patent examiners (or scientists for that matter) are very different; sometimes they’re direct opposites.
One particular article stood out from the rest yesterday. It’s titled “Brexit would scupper Europe’s unitary patent plans, says EPO president” and it helps confirm that we were all along right about UPC not being a certainty (the same tactics of self-fulfilling prophecies were also used when it was called “EU patent” or “Community patent”). To quote the article:
A Brexit victory would totally ruin the timeline for the long-planned EU unitary patent due to come into force in early 2017, the president of the European Patent Office has told Ars.
“If the ‘out’ vote wins then we have a big question mark—nobody knows what will happen,” Benoît Battistelli said.
The so-called unitary patent is expected to offer dramatic savings over the traditional European patent as there will be no need to approach each country individually. In addition, a single European Union patent court will be established. “The Unitary Patent Court (UPC) is needed because if you have a unitary patent, you need a unified litigation system. It should not be possible that a court in France would decide on a case in the UK, or vice versa,” said Battistelli.
“So the countries involved have decided through a treaty—not an EU regulation—to create a UPC. I think it is not well understood what a step forward this will be, because for the first time there will be an international court that will be competent for litigation between private parties,” he added.
As before, we urge patent examiners and other people who realise Battistelli ‘fronts’ for multinational giants (recipients of special treatment) to antagonise the UPC by all means possible. This can help get Battistelli thrown out of the helm, with or without the Administrative Council doing its job. Contact politicians regarding the UPC and explain to them why their nation must not tolerate (and certainly not ratify) the UPC, just as it oughtn’t touch the TTIP and TPP with a 10-foot bargepole. █
* Batttistelli is estimated to have spent up to 7 MILLION Euros on a few hours of silly festival. Imagine the waste and all the other things that could be done with that money.
Send this to a friend
Emptying the EPO’s savings/coffers in a desperate effort to control (and distort) the message stakeholders receive
Summary: British media (the largest online publication about technology) criticises an article that the Financial Times (influencer of the rich) published in order to promote the UPC, just shortly after becoming a ‘media partner’ of the EPO
THE TRUE DEPTHS of the scandals at the EPO are yet unexplored. Benoît Battistelli never ceases to amaze, having just broadened his secret PR contracts. To make matters worse, Battistelli’s EPO is now buying the media. How long before this blows up both in the face of the media and in the face of Battistelli? There’s moral/ethical breach here. It’s sometimes considered to be journalistic misconduct.
“It’s institutions like the EPO (once run and ruined by Battistelli) which discredit the EU (even if non-EU an institution) and thus jeopardise European unity.”Put in simple terms and quite bluntly, the EPO has truly corrupted the media. This in itself should be a massive scandal which everyone should speak about. Unlike propagandists from the Financial Times (FT) and other EPO ‘media partners’ (i.e. Battistelli puppets/mouthpieces), I never make money from EPO reports. I just do this because it’s the right thing to do.
Battistelli’s puff pieces and recent campaigns at the Financial Times (of London) should raise many questions both inside and outside the EPO. It’s institutions like the EPO (once run and ruined by Battistelli) which discredit the EU (even if non-EU an institution) and thus jeopardise European unity.
Earlier today we found this new article (modified screenshot above). It seems like Battistelli’s Kool-Aid is hard for people to drink/swallow, even if they don’t realise that the EPO PAID the FT for propaganda. I quite safely assumed that they (most probably) didn’t know this, so I told them after they had published this article.
For those who don’t know what the EPO and FT conspired to achieve, see last week’s articles. All the gory details are in an article we published 5 days ago as well as a few articles from around that time regarding the EPO’s PR campaign with FT (including “FT Reports”, which magically enough started “following” me in Twitter a couple of days ago, having not enjoyed the attention).
Andrew Fentem from The Register wrote:
In 2017, the EU is going to open the Unified Patent Court. This court will make it much easier for patent trolls and corporations in the US – armed with dodgy patent applications and IP attorneys – to reach into the UK and strangle your startup at birth. Think about it.
Last week the Financial Times reported )that two-thirds of patent cases in the US are now brought by “patent trolls”. In the last five years this has cost US startups more than $20bn in VC investment.
Patent trolls don’t innovate or build anything, but specialise in suing legitimate innovative businesses. This activity is primarily enabled by the US’s massively dysfunctional patent system, a system that will rubber-stamp patent applications often with minimal vetting – resulting in a system choked with applications ranging from the spurious to the wildly ludicrous. Patent trolls then tour the world, armed with these “patents”, extorting money out of honest innovators and engineers.
Although patent trolling is now increasing rapidly in Germany, Professor James Bessen of Boston University School of Law says that it is not currently a major problem in the UK – where fewer software patents and a “loser pays” litigation costs regime are real disincentives for that sort of “opportunistic behaviour”.
However, the EU’s new Unified Patent Court will, according a German law expert, “increase patent trolling in Europe” and open the UK up to patent trolling because “a judgment from the UPC will … cover the territory of all participating member states… This significantly increases the business risk.”
We kindly ask patent attorneys, examiners etc. to pay careful attention to these arguments against the UPC. Like many arguments in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, these ones are based on logic and facts, thorough analysis rather than Battistelli propaganda, promises and fiction for those too lazy to examine it for themselves. In spite of the UPC, I am against Brexit, which probably helps demonstrate that my opposition to UPC is principled but not blind.
We urge all EPO workers to study the real impact of the UPC on their jobs and on European interests. Don’t believe a word which comes out of Battistelli, his ‘communications’ staff, and his ‘media partners’. Remember who Battistelli, an ENA graduate, really works for [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Also check who desperately wants the UPC (hint: the same kind of people or corporations that strive to ram TPP down Europe’s throat and incidentally some of those who want Brexit, as per today’s article at Corporate Europe Observatory). █
Send this to a friend
Distraction and diversion phase at the expense of millions of Euros (EPO budget)
Reference: Watergate scandal
Summary: Despite Battistelli being the high-profile employee who ‘sabotaged’ the EPO, Team Battistelli would rather have people question the integrity of staff representatives who speak out about such serious issues
THE EPO has a huge (and growing) PR budget, putting aside all the money it spends ‘buying’ the media. It’s truly despicable. It’s obscene! Battistelli is breaking the piggybank and if external accounting professionals/experts were to visit the Office, who knows what they would find… Christoph Ernst might be in a position to know.
It is not paranoid and it is not unreasable to expect AstroTurfing. I have written about the subject for many years, usually in relation to Microsoft with its extensive network of PR agencies. That’s just how this industry operates. Recall what the EPO's PR agency has already done for fracking companies, i.e. for those who pollute people’s air, water, etc.
The judge whose ‘trial’ took place today (see our latest post for details) was thoroughly demonised by Dutch and German media just weeks after the EPO had signed the FTI Consulting contract (PR deal). They basically defamed him and he might sue. Later this week we shall show how the FTI Consulting arrangement was in fact secretly expanded, specifically in Germany and the Netherlands. They are trying to tame the media, not just plant puff pieces in it. Journalistic misconduct is small potatoes given some of the truly serious abuses that can be attributed to Battistelli and his gang. They hope to cover it all up or drown out the signal with noise (like EIA2016 puff pieces).
Over the past week, especially after IP Kat censorship backfired, we have noticed a rather sharp rise in the number silly and at times immature comments at IP Kat (we go through all the comments via RSS feeds). Responding to provocative comments that blame everything on SUEPO, here is what one person wrote about the demonisation of SUEPO, reinforcing the EPO management’s characterisation of SUEPO as ‘bullies’ (see the bogus ‘trial’ against Hardon):
“Afraid of SUEPO’s bullying”? Seriously? Nah. SUEPO were fairly clownish by union standards,and of course there were a couple of hotheads, but telling them to get lost was inconsequential.
However,and however irritating they could be, they still held the management to account, and it was the management’s fault that they never really engaged with SUEPO.
But SUEPO, and especially some individuals within it, have stepped up to the plate and deserve respect for the way they have behaved in the face of BB’s determined authoritarianism, nepotism,and dismantling of the EPO. And employees support them because of this stand,and the recognition that SUEPO is being targetted because they are tellingthe truth. No bullying required.
Given what SUEPO has gone through and the sheer abuse it has been subjected to (both individually and institutionally), all its leaders have been extremely restrained and kept their composure. To call them bullies is basically a case of projection. It’s not hard to see that the bullies are Battistelli and the thugs who surround him. They have a long track record, not just in Eponia.
“To call them bullies is basically a case of projection. It’s not hard to see that the bullies are Battistelli and the thugs who surround him.”SUEPO does a terrific job looking after staff’s interests and given the dodgy involvement by Wellkom in the OHSRA [1, 2, 3], it’s not hard to see why SUEPO has grown weary and concerned about the motivations of Battistelli, especially after breaking German law to spy on staff and visitors.
The “EPO OHSRA,” according to SUEPO, is “not what it should be” because it resorted to tracking of people who took the survey, it included questions about one’s sex life (good subject for potential blackmail in the future), etc. Here is how SUEPO put it not too long ago:
The staff representation has for years been asking the administration to do an Occupational Health & Safety Risk Assessment (OHSRA) in order to provide the EPO with a rational basis for its Occupational Health Policy. The administration has until recently been dragging its feet, obviously not wanting to know what is wrong in the Office. A survey has now finally been done. But even if we kindly overlook the technical difficulties and the fact that the survey initially contained a series of tracking links, the questionnaire itself was surprising. For those who were invited to take part (and those who did not manage to get to the end of it) we reproduce the questions. There are surprisingly few questions about aspects of the working conditions that are likely to contribute to staff ill health in the EPO. Instead there are many questions about “life-style” and well-being, including five questions asking whether you spend a “significant” amount of money on health-related products, read wellness articles in the press, read health magazines, watch health-related television programs or use the internet to learn about wellness. There are also several very personal questions about issues that should not be of the employers concern such as whether you are satisfied with your family, with your physical appearance, and whether you have sexual problems. We wonder what our management will do with the answers. Offer after-work “well-being” courses and marriage counseling as a means to cope with the stress in the Office?
Notice how they might be trying to blame people’s family for depression and/or health issues, just as they did when people committed suicide and the suicides were either (flabbergastingly) blamed on SUEPO or some external factor, until the brother of one victim told Bavarian television that the last straw was the EPO’s Investigative Unit.
There are a couple of quoteworthy comments today in IP Kat and they appear to have come from the same person. Here it is with some minor spelling corrections:
The EPO was founded many years ago when there was still a sense of moral obligation and integrity even with politicians, managers and corporations. Being sincere and moral this is why those who founded the EPO could not conceive that this could/would change, because for that they would need to think in an immoral way.
Now all those in charge of the EPO care about is how I can I keep my present position, how can I make myself look good and maybe even work my way up the ladder, with no respect for anyone but maybe their betters (at least butt-kiss in public). Any suffering is just collateral damage to the bigger cause. Those disadvantaged shouldn’t take it personally.
Facts are distorted by management saying that their intentions are good. But there is a saying; the way to hell is paved with good intentions. And that is exactly where the EPO is going.
The real issue is acquired rights.
When examiners joined the EPO many years ago they signed a contract. They were given a Codex where the rights and obligations of both parties were fixed. For an examiner this meant working to examine patents with a 40 hr work week. In return for this the examiner was given a certain salary with incremental increases in pay being promised, at least within the grade. Promotion from A1 to A2 to A3 to A4 was not a right but could be expected with reasonable performance. If you performed very well you were promoted faster if you did very badly you could be blocked for promotion. This is the same in National systems.
The reason for this is to try and keep officials happy with a good pay package so as not to be tempted to cede to corruption. With the new system the incremental steps have been unilaterally abolished without agreement with staff representation. The admin council agreed and as such is complicit.
The new system pitches one examiner against another for production. Only the best get promoted. Although this sounds reasonable, it is not. There are ways to rig the system to make you look good. In effect promotion or a step increase is basically a bonus for being a high producer (considering quality is in the eye of the beholder). Look what bonuses did for the banking system. Is this really what the Admin Council want for the EPO?
Also employees were forced on signing their contract to agree to a pay into the system of social security and invalidity, with the promise of certain rights. The EPO has unilaterally reduced or scrapped certain benefits, basically retroactively changing the contract, without agreement from the staff and without any compensation. At the same time they have changed the internal medical systems, which has even had the gall to question external doctors certificates. The office has given itself the right to check whether you are really sick. To this end during your whole period of illness you are obliged to stay at home at certain times (which can be counterproductive to improving health. But who cares.)
The only reason that the EPO can do this is because management is not checked by the Admin Council. For whatever reason. The admin council lets itself be bamboozled by BB stating that they believe that this is legal, and then to go along with it.
Does the admin council forget that there are nationals of their own countries working at the EPO, who as citizens of their respective countries are used to certain human rights which they are denied, by virtue of having joined an organization serving their respective countries by examining patents and protecting the European public from undeserved monopolies.
And how are they rewarded? ……
Thank you very much Admin council.
Please take your respective responsibility and do what is right and not what is in your own interest. Treat us as human beings and not cash cows.
If you have bothered to read this far thank you for your attention.
Disillusioned but stupidly still hopeful me
The bottom line is that the Administration Council must not fall for the illusion that SUEPO is the problem, that staff is aggressive, that depression is not the fault of the management and so on. These seem to be, potentially, PR tactics. Battistelli needs to be sacked this month, but it’s not unthinkable that FTI Consulting would resort to AstroTurfing if not appalling puff pieces to convince delegates that everything is alright (this is why other people need to contact the delegates). That’s the type of things these PR agents are paid millions of Euros (of EPO budget) for. Don’t underestimate their behind-the-scenes impact. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Turning to control and exploitation of the media, as well as defamation of people who tell the truth about Battistelli and his thugs
THE EPO‘s control of the media (not just European media) follows the FTI Consulting contract (US firm). Battistelli’s control of the media, a subject we shall elaborate on later in the week, should make everyone disgusted and should become a scandal in its own right.
More Battistelli puff pieces for him and his goons now appear in the Indian press (as of last night [1, 2]) and nothing is said about the possibility that Battistelli will get sacked later this month.
“New EPO caricature,” told us a person, which is “free to use,” can be seen above. In the words of our reader, here is an explanation of this collage:
The attached satirical “collage” borrows some headlines from Dutch newspaper articles.
The English translations are as follows.
Industrial relations: Senior official sabotaged European Patent Office
Governing body of Patent Office wants to investigate the actions of the CEO.
Industrial conflict: The Administrative Council of the European Patent Office wants an investigation into the way in which it has been managed.
Notice the part about Sarkozy (context here) and about FTI Consulting. In our next post we’ll shed some light on the swastikas part and why it’s related. █
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en Decepción, Europa, Patentes at 11:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La EPO está desperdiciando grandes cantidades de dinero (presupuésto de la EPO) para financiar la agenda privada de Battistelli (y beneficio de las grandes corporaciónes del otro lado del charco)
Sumario: La EPO pasa gran cantidad de dinero a los medios de comunicación bajo la cubiérta cerémoniales, pero el dinero parece ir más allá
Las cosas parecen no poder ser más vergónzosas que esta. Es avergonzante para ambos el Financial Times para la EPO. La EPO está ahora comprándo (y así corrompiéndo) a los medios como parte de un carisímo gasto publicitario con el cual espera distraer al público de sus abusos a los derechos humanos.
Notamos el año pasado que la agencia PR de la EPO paga a la ‘revista’ IAM y/o a la compañíá que la posee para hacer eventos de propaganda pro-UPC propaganda en lo Estados Unidos. Esta ‘revista’ IAM ya había sido un trapo de propaganda para la UPC propaganda que usa tácticas avergonzadoras contra políticos que antagonizan a la UPC. No fué duro de notar y ayer la EPO uso a sus compadres dentro de IAM (propagandistas) como “fuente” o referencia. Esto esta pasándo mucho reciéntemente y parece ser eventos coordinados por la secuencia en la que ocurren.
IAM es una empresa con sede en Londres, que es poca cosa en comparación con el Financial Times (también de Londres), por lo que sospechamos que la EPO compró algo más que cobertura para el EIA2016 del Financial Times. Basta con mirar el nuevo artículo anterior (captura de pantalla).
En este momento tratan hacer a la UPC deseable y su posible evasión como una pérdida para el Reino Unido. El resumen dice “salida británica podría retrasar el nacimiento de un sistema común y un costo de Reino Unido los derechos de hosting” y el párrafo inicial es una larga serie de mentiras promocionales (como si fuera un escritor fantasma que escribe a favor de la EPO o su agencia): “Un votación para salirse de Brexit heriría a la “patente unitaria” y su asociado “tribunal de patentes unificado” (UPC). Después de haber jugado un papel importante en el desarrollo de ambas instituciones, Gran Bretaña tendría que retirarse de la UPC y renunciar a acoger una división de la decisión judicial sobre ciencias de la vida y farmacéuticos disputas. En virtud de los acuerdos actuales, el sistema unitario sólo puede venir a la vida si es ratificado por un mínimo de 13 países, entre ellos Francia, Alemania y el Reino Unido, tres mayores patentadores de la UE. “Creo que no sería necesariamente Brexit torpedear todo el asunto”, dice Rob Williams, uno de los jefes de la propiedad intelectual en la oficina de Londres de Bird & Bird, el bufete de abogados internacional “, pero sin duda retrasar su introducción mientras que los nuevos acuerdos son hechos”.
Esto es, por supuesto absurdo. Otra forma de decirlo es, Brexit ayudaría a aplastar a un régimen de patentes indeseables que ayuda a las grandes empresas extranjeras y a sus trolles de patentes a nadie más. A estos desgraciádos no les interesa nada más, son los Judas de Europa.
Esto no es el único ejemplo de como Financial Times (FT) es usado como vocero de la EPO después de recibir dinero para convertirse en un “socio de los medios”. Mirando a los pasados dias, vemos que le FT esta siendo usado como propaganda para la UPC y la pretensión de examinaciónes (en realidad esta en decline).la EPO cita a su “socio de medios”. Que conveniénte. Aqui tenemos que la EPO subiéndose al FT para promover las patentes de software y dar la ilusión de crecimiénto, incluso si estas patentes estan alegadamente registrados en no otro lenguaje que Mandarin.
#FTinvent Es actualmente un hashtag de pago para la cobertura de la EPO, es decir, no es periodismo, por lo que no es demasiado difícil de realizar un seguimiento de la distorsión de los medios de comunicación de la EPO. La EPO, después de haber pagado el Financial Times un montón de dinero (si 1,5 millones de euros fueron a CNN que sólo podemos adivinar cuánto fue al Financial Times), se convierte a sí misma y al Financial Times en un hazmerreír. Aquí está la EPO y su “socio de medios” (es decir un vocero pagado) difundiéndo la propaganda “PYME” (contrario a la verdad en relación con la UPC). La EPO no puede ayudar a perpetuar el mito de las “PYMEs“, a pesar de que las PYMEs se quejen de que su voz ha sido secuestrado.
Pagar por “cobertura” de este “socio de los medios” de la EPO se encuenta en muchos otros lugares, por ejemplo, [1, 2] (la cuenta oficial de FT y “Informes FT”), por lo que sospechamos que Battistelli y sus chacales utilizan este truco de Lisboa como una excusa para pasar el dinero a los editores, también para la promoción de la UPC.
Vean uno en el coro que dice: “las necesidades de la UPC sea ratificado por los 3 países con mayor número de patentes. Si brexit Italia/NL ratifican vería a la UPC segir adelante pienso “(añadiendo el hashtag #FTinvent y más tarde excusar los litigios abusivos que implica UPC).
Cuando Battistelli habla de ‘mejorar’ la EPO lo que él quiere decir verdaderamente es remplazar al EPO por la UPC, e incluso eliminar las Salas de Recursos/Apelaciónes en el proceso, y que se joda Europa y sus PYMEs que él se retira con todos esos millones que yá puso en sus cofres y el de sus compadres.
La último tontería de la UPC, que es, por supuesto, que está siendo propagado por aquellos que se beneficiarán de ella, ahora dice “estimación más reciente: UPC para comenzar en segundo trimestre de 2017″ (cada año se dice “muy pronto ahora” o “el fin de el año “o” a finales de este año “, y ahora se ha retrasado de nuevo). También vimos que cuando se le llamó “patente comunitaria” o “patente de la UE”. Que se ha prolongado durante casi una década y no había resistencia/antagonismo, lo que resulta en cambio de marca (el mismo modus operandi cuando se trata de aprobar una legislación controvertida).
Recuerden que el verdadero propósito del evento en Lisboa, donde se habla sobre el notorio fondo de cooperación. Las poblaciones más pequeñas, como Portugal o Bulgaria están siendo cortejados/sobornadas? por razones puramente políticas/estratégicas y en base a este breve informe [A través de Bastian Best], Bulgaria es el último en rendirse y entregarse a la UPC, tal vez después de haber sido lavado el cerebro de manera suficiente por “socios de los medios” como el Financial Times. “De acuerdo con la página web del Consejo de la Unión Europea”, dice este post, la vinculación a este acuerdo, “Bulgaria ha ahora depositado su instrumento de ratificación (el 3 de junio de 2016) para convertirse en el décimo país en completar sus trámites de ratificación. Bulgaria se une a Finlandia, Portugal, Luxemburgo, Malta, Dinamarca, Bélgica, Suecia, Francia y Austria como uno de los diez países que han completado el proceso de ratificación”.
¿Cuántas más organizaciónes de los medios la EPO necesita comprar para engañar al público, incluyendo muchos hombres de negocios que leen el Financial Times? ¿No ha quedado algun sentido de ética en la EPO? Y ahora Battistelli se atreve a justificar su ataque en contra de sus trabajadores para ser vistos como de interes para eliminar conflictos de interes (mientras contrata a la esposa de su compadre para manejar a sus empleados [1, 2, 3, 4] y comprar varios medios de comunicación)…
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en Decepción, Europa, Patentes at 7:31 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La ratificación de la UPC y otros favores ente las motivaciónes reales y por medio de pago a los medios de comunicación
Sumario: La verdadera terrible realidad detrás del EIA16, que no es otra cosa que propaganda servil a Battistelli que cuesta mucho dinero y distorsióna a los medios Europeos
LA EPO (Organización) en su totalidad simplemente se abochorna a sí misma con el tonto (y riesgoso) con el desfile/despilfarro de la EIA16, que es algo como un desfile de belleza disfrazado como “ciencia”. Refleja lo que Blatter estuvo haciéndo en la FIFA en sus últimos días.
Hace poco más de una hora la gente PR de la EPO retweeted lo siguiente de Carlos Moedas (con la foto de la parte superior): “# EIA16 inspiradora ceremonia de apertura con el presidente EPO.org Sr. Battistelli y el primer ministro de Costa” (Moedas es comisario europeo de Investigación, Ciencia e Innovación, al que también se presionó y tal vez fue invitado para lavarle el cerebro).
“Battistelli, quien hizo que la EPO cubra los costos de esta su charada, está casi tan loco como Blatter (totalmente fuera de la realidad).”
El sr. Battistelli está cabildeando Portugal como es de esperarse, como fue correctamente previsto en nuestro previo cubrimento de esto. Para usar las palabras de alguien de la EPO quien vió aquello: “Se me revuelve el estómago con este absurdo teatro!”
La EPO nos muestra que no sólo los políticos pueden comprar los medios de comunicación. El Sr. Battistelli hace lo mismo; literalmente ha pagado un estimado de millones de euros a los medios de comunicación (el número exacto es desconocido para nosotros, pero podemos extrapolarlo basándonos en el año pasado).
Battistelli, quien hizo que la EPO cubra los costos de esta su charada, está casi tan loco como Blatter (totalmente fuera de la realidad). El aparentemente dijo: “Es nuestra ambición que el premio al inventor europeo se convierta en el Premio Nobel de la Ciencia” (¿quién se cree que es?, ¿Alfred Nobel? No nos sorprénde que desperdicie una fortuna en sus seis guardias pretorianos (a no ser que le guarden otra cosa que no sea la espalda), demonstrando su megalomanía y hacer que la EPO cubra todos los costos con pretextos dudosos).
“EIA2016 no puede ser suficientemente eficaz como una distracción (por ejemplo, las protestas de hoy), pero ¿le importa Battistelli? Él no paga un centavo por esto. Él está drenando la Oficina sólo para cubrir su propia trasero en este momento.”
viEUws, que es un socio de medios de la EPO de este año (suponemos que recibió un pago por EPO de Battistelli, pero no sabemos cuánto), continúa fabricando piezas de hojaldre, habiéndo ya producido algunas para Battistelli hace varios meses (como se ya lo hizo una pelota de béisbol a las preguntas de la entrevista ‘con Battistelli). ¿Cuánto se gastó en esto? La EPO sin duda pagó mucho dinero para el Financial Times (Londres) para jugar junto con esta farsa y que todavía se muestra. Más propaganda patrocinada por EPO del Financial Times se puede ver hoy es parte de una ola más amplia de piezas de hojaldre en Francia, en Alemania, y varios otros países (la EPO compró otra media docena de compañías de medios).
EIA2016 no puede ser suficientemente eficaz como una distracción (por ejemplo, las protestas de hoy), pero ¿le importa Battistelli? Él no paga un centavo por esto. Él está drenando la Oficina sólo para cubrir su propia trasero en este momento.
La EPO esta colapsando al mismo tiempo que desperdicia millones de Euros escondiéndo este colapse. Battistelli ha destruído totalmente a la EPO y si él no es despedido a finales de mes, habrán serias consecuencias. la Sala 28 ciertamente lo sabe.
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »