EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.08.16

Latest Propaganda From the EPO’s Management an Effort to Make the EPO the Tool of Megacorporations

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Turf wars: Megacorporations typically seek further protectionism for their dominant positions

Private

Summary: A quick roundup of some of the latest spin and paid-for (bought) coverage that helps introduce a distorted patent system whose beneficiaries are not European (or even people)

THE EPO is starting to focus more and more on propaganda and lies [1, 2], as we noted in our previous post. Truth does not support the EPO’s actions, so reality distortion becomes imperative. We are going to spend a lot of today responding to lies disseminated by EPO managers and their unethical PR team.

“The rules are being changed in favour of lawyers’ biggest clients and patent trolls, much to the detriment of Europeans who are not patent lawyers.”There was a reminder on a Sunday (unusual for IAM) of an EPO-funded pro-UPC propaganda event. This one angle of spin is rather telling. The EPO is liaising with patent lawyers in an effort to change the rules. The rules are being changed in favour of lawyers' biggest clients and patent trolls, much to the detriment of Europeans who are not patent lawyers.

The EPO’s PR team finally decided that publishing only in German is rather tasteless (we mentioned it to them), so it now has an English version of an article originally published in German alone (warning: epo.org link), piggybacking a patent maximalist to help glamourise the EPO, as we noted at the time (patent maximalists serve to reinforce the narrative/mythology that more patents necessarily mean more innovation). Here is the EPO’s PR team again taking advantage of cancer on World Cancer Day despite its activities which harm cancer patients.

“”Several days ago we wrote about EPO price hikes that harm SMEs. Shortly thereafter, as one commenter jokingly put it: “The increased fees are not for patent examination but for essential EPO business like spying on employees and members of the public, buying favorable press reports, organizing inventor of the year events, providing “technical” support to obedient member states, subsidizing private companies like Control Risks or FTI Consulting. To the benefit of European society.”

Does anyone think it’s acceptable for the EPO to waste nearly $1 million (in just a year!) on some US-based PR firm? How about the use of so-called economists to help generate propaganda regarding the economics of patents?

“Regarding examination or not,” one person wrote, “there are several patent systems possible, each with its advantages and drawbacks. But as long as the EPC requires that examination be carried out and as long as the EPO takes a nice fee from the applicants for doing an examination, it is not within mr. Battistelli’s competence, nor within that of the AC, to “take us” to a different system, however modern that may be.”

Battistelli is now lobbying for the UPC, which in no way helps the European SMEs. That’s why FTI Consulting, which is paid by the EPO, now pays publishers for pro-EPO propaganda. As another new comment put it today:

“Isn’t that the cost-saving, modern and efficient way to go? Is that not where BB is taking us all?”

That may well be so.
It’s abundantly clear that he is intent on shutting down the EPO Boards of Appeal.
He has more or less said so publicly on a few occasions or at least it can be read between the lines of some of his propaganda.

But the question in the back of many people’s minds is where is his mandate coming from ? Paris ? Brussels ? Washington ?

BB [Battistelli] is not a “visionary”. He is a technocrat. He is implementing somebody else’s vision. But who is or are the puppet-masters pulling his strings ?

Based on leaked documents, Battistelli prioritises large corporations, even foreign ones. Emanating from our work here, including Spanish translations, is some media coverage in Google News and days ago Juve published another article, titled “Kommentar: Warnschuss für EPA-Präsidenten Battistelli” (we kindly ask readers to help us publish an English translation of it). Battistelli and his mob try to ‘revolutionise’ the system at the behest of large multinational corporations, at the expense of Europe. Should they be allowed to get away with it? Why isn’t Parliament stepping in? Silence is complicity in this context.

“When the mob gains the day it ceases to be any longer the mob. It is then called the nation.”

Napoleon

‘Aversion to Change’ Propaganda From the EPO Echoes or Parrots Lenin and Stalin

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO spinners sharpen their propaganda machine and rewrite history

Lenin

Summary: The out-of-control EPO management is trying to fool the media by blaming staff representatives for getting fired, simply because they stood up to a highly abusive and megalomaniacal dictator

SUEPO lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, whom we mentioned here before (e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), spoke to Dutch media about EPO abuses. Zegveld knows these abuses quite well as she was actively involved even a year ago; she defended Hardon personally and wrote some letters on her behalf, too.

Today we present this SUEPO-provided translation [PDF] of this recent press article. It is similar to other articles which were previously mentioned here. It mostly repeats similar facts (it’s relatively accurate) but adds some propaganda from the EPO's PR team. They pretend that change, not abuses, is the real issue here. They pretend that aversion to change is what it all boils down to. See the part under “Consequences” and also some noteworthy bits highlighted in yellow.

Thursday 28 January 2016, 6:17am

Employees protest against ‘intimidation’ at European Patent Office

RIJSWIJK – Employees of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk are taking to the streets on Thursday afternoon. The employees are protesting against the poor work atmosphere within the company and the culture of ‘fear and intimidation’, as some describe it.

An immediate cause for the protest is the dismissal of two colleagues and the demotion of a third. The location of the patent office in Rijswijk is the largest international organisation in the Netherlands, with around 2,700 employees.

Those who were fired and demoted work at the EPO headquarters in Munich. They all work for the organisation’s own union. Last week, the sanctions led to a major protest in Germany, with an estimated 1,300 participants. But the upheaval has now reached Rijswijk as well.

Consequences

The staff claims that the punished employees are facing the consequences of the fact that they dared to criticise the ‘tyrannical’ head of EPO, Frenchman Benoit Battistelli. One of the fired employees is the Dutch chair of the union, Elizabeth Hardon. “It’s outright intimidation,” says the union’s lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld.

An EPO spokesperson says that Battistelli is in the middle of a major reorganisation to modernise the company. “And of course, that can lead to reactions among the staff. Everyone has trouble with changes.” He also says that the head of the company would very much like to enter into a dialogue with the employees to repair the relationship.

Governments have to intervene

Thursday’s protest march will go from the French to the German embassy in The Hague. The disgruntled employees hope to get the governments of both countries and that of the Netherlands to intervene.

Employees of EPO in Rijswijk speak of a ‘culture of fear’ within the company. People are only willing to speak out anonymously, for fear of reprisals. They are saying that people who like posts on Facebook that criticise the organisation, for example, can count on sanctions. ‘Censorship, threats. Working here is no fun anymore,” one of them says.

‘No culture of fear’

The EPO spokesperson denies the culture of fear. He says the company will not accept that people who have great working conditions speak poorly of the company they work at.

The Dutch cabinet has yet to make a clear statement on the issue. In response to questions from the House of Representatives, Minister Lodewijk Asscher (for Social Affairs and Employment, and member of the PvdA (Labour Party) previously underlined that part of the problem is that the board of management of the European Patent Office has legal immunity. That means, among other things, that the Dutch Inspectorate SZW cannot be granted access to the offices in Rijswijk as long as Battistelli does not allow it.

Cabinet must take action

The PvdA and SP (Socialist Party) in the Dutch House of Representatives want State Secretary Martijn van Dam (for Economic Affairs, and member of the PvdA) to take action. He is to mediate and meet with his European colleagues to make sure the ‘legal loophole is closed,’ according to MP Sharon Gesthuizen (of SP).

The European Patent Office is currently building a new office in Rijswijk costing €205 million. Prime Minister Rutte helped Battistelli lay the first stone in the summer of 2014. Protestors also marched in Rijswijk when the first post was driven into the ground.

What shocks us in many of these articles is that despite a track record of sheer lies (recent examples in [1, 2]), the media continues to print the words of EPO management without any fact-checking. To say that it’s the fault of staff representatives that they got fired because they antagonised change is like saying that millions of Russians/Soviets lost their lives simply because they opposed the ‘change’ by a brutal new regime. It hardly qualifies as legitimate defense.

Later today we are going to rebut some lies from the EPO, whose expensive PR strategy is far too easy to bust given enough time.

02.04.16

Readers’ Article: A Strange Conspiracy of Silence in the German Media (Part I)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair

Ana Marie keeps quiet

Summary: The views of some of our readers regarding reluctance in the German media to challenge the EPO’s violations of German law, probably because Germany benefits from being a host nation of the EPO

As a frequent media critic (more evident/visible in my social media accounts than in this Web site), I have come across plenty of evidence of censorship and self-censorship in the European media. Some links about that are being shared daily (under, e.g., the “Censorship” category in our daily links). Techrights itself is subjected to site-wide censorship by the EPO right now. I experienced both censorship and self-censorship when I worked for a publisher one decade ago (my editor removed or watered down paragraphs of mine which were critical of an occasional sponsor, Microsoft). There are serious issues in the editorial/publication process that not many people are generally aware of. If one suspects that censorship takes place, it will often turn out to be the case (even if there is no admission as nobody likes to admit suppression of free speech). Even WIPR, which frequently covers EPO matters, did it some months ago (censorship of criticism of the EPO, due to pressure from management).

“Even WIPR, which frequently covers EPO matters, did it some months ago (censorship of criticism of the EPO, due to pressure from management).”Let’s face the reality of corporate media; in order to be financially viable someone must benefit financially, and it’s not always just the advertisers (to whom access to readers/audience is effectively sold). There is agenda to be delivered for some people’s financial gain (not just through advertising of products but of policy).

Germany’s media outlets are no exception to this problem. Take the European Union for instance. Germany benefits from it financially (weapons trade, austerity in Greece and various loans inside the EU come to mind), so it doesn’t wish to criticise it too much. I personally support the European Union and I even have a booklet in support of the European Union, given to me 17 years ago by the German Consulate.

“Much of the media supports the EPO by silence, i.e. by not covering all the negative stories coming out of the EPO.”Germany’s media is not likely to bash the European Union to the same degree that the British media sometimes does (just see what the Daily Mail has just published in its front page/cover). Germany is at the very heart of the European Union. It cannot criticise the US too harshly, either (see for example “European media writing pro-US stories under CIA pressure – German journo”). To cite this article from a very prominent media person (check his career profile), former CIA Director William Colby is quoted as saying that the “CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

As we’ve just noted, the EPO works for corporations, not for Europeans. It just has the word “European” in its name. It should thus be seen as unsurprising that the corporate media will typicaly be biased in favour of the EPO. Much of the media supports the EPO by silence, i.e. by not covering all the negative stories coming out of the EPO.

Here is what some readers told us yesterday:

We wanted to make a few observations in response to your recent posting about the article “Es kracht an allen Ecken und Enden” which appeared in the Münchner Merkur on 21 January.

The article is written by Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann, a Munich-based journalist who writes for the Münchner Merkur, a regional daily for Munich.

His articles are normally distributed and reproduced Germany-wide in other regional dailies such as the “Oberbayrisches Volksblatt”, “Frankfurter Rundschau”, Berliner Zeitung”, “Stuttgarter Zeitung”, “Badische Zeitung”, “Pfälzischer Merkur”, etc.

For example:

„Wie bei der Fifa oder in China“
Europäisches Patentamt: Kritik am Chef des Europäischen Patentamtes
Patentrecht: Patent auf Brokkoli
Der soziale Frieden ist zerstört
Verhältnisse wie im Überwachungsstaat
Großer Zoff beim Patentamt

Magenheim-Hörmann’s article about the EPO are well researched and of a superior journalistic quality to what one might normally expect in the regional press.

In recent times he has been giving far better and more penetrating coverage to EPO matters than any of the big German dailies, in particular the Munich-based Süddeutsche Zeitung which seems to have gone completely silent.

What is curious about his most recent article is the fact that it only appeared in the paper version of the Münchner Merkur.

It is not available online on open access (although it seems that it can be found behind a paywall) and it doesn’t appear in any of the other regional dailies or at least it doesn’t seem to turn up in Google searches.

It’s almost as if somebody is trying to impede the circulation of the article.

Some speculation about this:

The latest article “Es kracht an allen Ecken und Enden” focuses on the social conflict at the EPO but in a byline it also mentions the recent “Monsanto melon” incident. The biotech patenting controversy seems to be generating a lot of grass-roots political protest in Germany and in neighboring countries such as Austria and Switzerland. Is it possible that somebody at a high political level is getting nervous about people making connections between the social conflict at the EPO and questionable management policies which seem to be aimed at encouraging biotech patenting ?


The deafening silence from the German media about recent EPO matters and the obvious reluctance of the German courts to question the EPO’s immunity are also suspicious.

On both fronts the response in Germany compares very unfavorably to that in the neighbouring Netherlands (the other main EPO host state) where both the press and the judiciary clearly have less inhibitions about subjecting the alleged abuses of EPO management to justifiable public scrutiny.

Here is an article published today in the UK press which explains how the German media is under strong political influence from the government. It seems reasonable to assume that this also applies to reporting about EPO matters.

In part 2 we are going to deal with further suspicious omissions (or suppressions) in reporting of EPO-related scandals.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable on persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ~George Bernard Shaw

01.29.16

Robert L. Stoll Otro Ejemplo de USPTO Patent Maximalistas (Officiales) Que Pretende Ser Una Clase de Journalistas E Impulsa las Patentes de Software

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 8:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/English

Publicado in America, Deception, Patents at 6:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ayudando a los trolles de patentes cuya arma preferida son las patentes de software

Heritage Foundation and Robert L. Stoll
Robert L. Stoll habla en un evento de la Chemical Heritage Foundation, no confundiral por la AVARA, socia de Koch Industries, anti-ciencia extremista de derecha grupo llamado la Heritage Foundation (photo source)

Sumario: El último ejemplo de covertura parcializada e incompleta acerca de patentes, donde la gente que hace sus ganancias de ellas pretenden hablar de los intereses de los Estados Unidos en vez de ellos mismos y las GIGANTES CORPORACIONES DE DONDE PROVIENEN.

Los reportajes de los medios en materias como patentes son pobres sino completamente terribles. A los medios de comunicación les gusta hablar con los abogados de patentes en vez de hacerlo con la gente que actualmente son impactadas por las patentes. Estos medios también conversan con los oficiales del systema de patentes, como el trístemente celebre David Kappos, empleado de IBM que lideró la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos (USPTO) y ahora HACE DINERO DEL MÁXIMALISMO DE PATENTES DENTRO DE UNA FIRMA PATENTE-CENTRICA (de oficina pública a buitre privado, o puertas giratorias). El promueve patentes de software estos días bajo la dirección de sun no so encubiertos amos.

“A los medios de comunicación les gusta hablar con los abogados de patentes en vez de hacerlo con la gente que actualmente son impactadas por las patentes.”Hablando de IBM, como notamos aquí el otro día, Forbes continúa incentivando a la acumulación de patentes (¨¿Porqué las Ganancias de la Propiedad Intelectual de IBM continúa declinando?¨) por razones que tienen que ver con la propiedad (de los medios). Mientras las grandes corporaciones dominen los medios, la parcialidad estará impregnada y mucha gente lo tomará por establecido, a menos que lean medios alternativos o blogs como este.

La propaganda persiste hoy dia, cortesía de lo que The Hill engañosamente titula ¨contribuyente¨ (suena inocentemente suficiente); apoyado por LOS ABOGADOS DE PATENTES QUIENES AMAN LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE. El chacal Robert L. Stoll reciéntemente ha publicado en los medios de los cabildeadores un ataque en los tests relacionados con Alice. El titular dice: ¨La nueva materia selectiva de patentes hiere la competitidad en los Estados Unidos¨. Que tal TONTERÍA. De nuevo la USPTO o algun abogado de patentes PRETENDE QUE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTARE SON BUENAS PARA LA ECONOMÍA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS (tal vez sólo es buena para su propia ocupación parasitaria, al contrario de la economía real). ¨Por esta razón,¨ concluye, nuestras cortes deben reexaminar el criterio de ¨dos puntas¨ en materia de elegibilidad de patentes. La economía innovadora de los Estados Unidos y los trabajos que ella crea no puede sobrevivir por mucho tiempo el abandono de la amplia materia subjetiva para la elegibilidad de patentes, que nos ha hecho lideres en innovación el último siglo. -Pueden creerlo la economía de todo un país o solo de las grandes coporaciones. Ellos pretenden ser los Estados Unidos (tal vez sean sus dueños) pero que decir de las pequeñas y medianas empresas que son las más perjudicadas por este injusto systema-.

“Las políticas por las que ellos abogan también AYUDAN A LOS TROLES DE PATENTES Y PROPONENTES DE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE COMO IBM (de donde proviene Kappos).”¿Qué trabajos ha tenido Stoll que actualmente hayan producido algo? ¿Ha escrito Stoll alguna vez una simple línea de códig en su vida? ¿Quién es Stoll de todas maneras? Por su propia descripción, ¨Stol es socio y co-presidente del grupo de propiedad intelectual Drinker Biddle & Reath así como anterior comisionado por patentes en la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos.¨ De acuerdo a su perfil de trabajo: ¨Gano su grado en Leyes de la Universidad Católica mientras trabajaba por la USPTO. Recibió su bachiller en Ingeniería Química de la Universidad de Maryland,¨ Nada que ver con software entonces.

Es triste que aquellos leyendo medios corporativos/corriente principal son expuestos a los puntos de vista de aquellos símilares a Stoll y Kappos. A ellos NO LES IMPORTA la ¨Innovación de la economía de América y los trabajos¨ como sostienen. Les IMPORTA SÓLO SUS TRABAJOS, que envuelve chantaje económico (´impuesto´ de patentes) a aquellos que realmente crean cosas. Las políticas por las que ellos abogan también AYUDAN A LOS TROLES DE PATENTES Y PROPONENTES DE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE COMO IBM (de donde proviene Kappos).

“Si quieres persuadir, debe apelar al interés más que el intelecto.”

Benjamin Franklin

01.28.16

Robert L. Stoll Another Example of USPTO Patent Maximalists (Officials) Who Pretend to be Some Kind of Journalists and Advocate Software Patents

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Helping patent trolls, whose weapon of choice is software patents

Heritage Foundation and Robert L. Stoll
Robert L. Stoll speaks at an event of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, not to be mistaken for a greedy, Koch Industries-tied, right-wing anti-science think tank called the Heritage Foundation (photo source)

Summary: The latest example of biased, incomplete coverage regarding patents, where people who profit from patent feuds pretend to speak for US interests rather than themselves and mega-corporations which they came from

THE MEDIA’S reporting on issues such as patents is poor if not outright appalling. The media likes speaking to patent lawyers rather than people who are actually impacted by patents. The media also speaks to officials of the patent system, such as David Kappos, an IBM employee who ran the USPTO and now makes money from patent maximalism inside a patents-centric firm (from public office to private vultures, or revolving doors). He promotes software patents these days.

“The media likes speaking to patent lawyers rather than people who are actually impacted by patents.”Speaking of IBM, as we noted here the other day, Forbes keeps hyping up the accumulation of patents (“Why Does IBM’s Intellectual Property Revenue Continue To Decline”) for reasons that are to do with ownership (of media). As long as large corporations dominate the media, the bias will be embedded and many people will just take it for granted, unless they read alternative media or blogs such as this.

The propaganda persists today, courtesy of what The Hill misleadingly labels “contributor” (sounds innocent enough); supported by patent lawyers who love software patents, Robert L. Stoll has just published in lobbyists’ media an attack on the Alice-related tests. “New patent subject-matter eligibility test hurts US competitiveness” says the headline. What utter nonsense. One again the USPTO or some patent lawyer pretends that software patents are good for the US economy (maybe good for his own parasitic occupation, contrary to the real economy). “For this reason,” he concludes, our courts must reexamine the “two-prong test” on patent subject-matter eligibility. America’s innovation economy and the jobs it creates cannot long survive the abandonment of the broad subject-matter eligibility that has made us world leaders in innovation for the past century.”

“The policies they advocate also help patent trolls and software patents proponents such as IBM (which Kappos came from).”What jobs has Stoll held which actually produced something? Has Stoll even written a single line of code in his lifetime? Who is Stoll anyway? By his own description, “Stoll is a partner and co-chair of the intellectual property group at Drinker Biddle & Reath and a former commissioner for patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” According to his work profile: “He earned his law degree from Catholic University while working at the USPTO. He received his bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maryland.” Nothing at all to do with software then.

It’s sad that those reading the corporate/mainstream media are exposed to views from the likes of Stoll and Kappos. They don’t care about “America’s innovation economy and the jobs” as they claim. They just care about their own job, which involves taxing (patent tax) those who actually create stuff. The policies they advocate also help patent trolls and software patents proponents such as IBM (which Kappos came from).

“If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.”

Benjamin Franklin

01.19.16

Poor Journalism From Süddeutsche Zeitung Perpetuates the EPO Management’s Lies

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Irresponsible journalism, blindly trusts the words of Battistelli and his PR team

FTI and Süddeutsche Zeitung

Summary: One of the leading ‘mainstream’ sources which covers EPO matters, Süddeutsche Zeitung, gets many of the facts wrong and by doing so helps the PR strategy of Team Battistelli

TOMORROW’S EPO protest is justified for many different reasons. Several people sent us a translation of the Süddeutsche Zeitung article (we hadn't foreseen the possibility of several people doing so at the same time). Süddeutsche Zeitung covers the EPO affairs quite often. Examples (so far) included:

The following is the first translation we’ve received of the latest article. It’s not a long article. “The article contains several errors,” told us the translator, “for example that the third staff member will not be promoted for three years (in fact, she was downgraded) and that the union leader will appeal at an international Patent Court (appeals concerning employment at the EPO can only be filed at the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization ILO, not at a Patent Court).

“The reporter who wrote this article, Katja Riedel, has also written the other articles about the EPO that were published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. She tends to repeat the statements of the EPO management in a rather unreflected manner, without questioning them and without gathering further background information.”

Here is the translation:

Head of union dismissed

European Patent Office justifies dismissal with reputation-damaging campaign

Katja Riedel

On Friday, the ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the management of the European Patent Office headed by President Benoît Battistelli has reached a new level of escalation. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This was revealed in an internal letter, to which the Süddeutsche Zeitung has access to. A third staff member, who was also subjected to a disciplinary procedure conducted by the Office, will not be promoted for three years.

Battistelli and an officially appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives participated, considered as proven that the head of the union had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused of having bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently and, through her lawyers, claimed having been bullied herself for years. She is now going to ask the president to revise his decision. If this is not successful, she will file an appeal at an international Patent Court. This process usually takes years.

For almost two years a severe conflict has been going on at the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Repeatedly, thousands of employees went to the streets to protest against the French [president] Battistelli. They complained that they were denied basic labor rights. The Office considers these protests to be part of a smear campaign against the Office’s management. Proceedings against a patent judge, a member of a Technical Board of Appeal, are still ongoing. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to be responsible for the smear campaign, supported by a small number of other people. He denies this vehemently. He said that he collected incriminating documents (that were found with him) out of personal interest. He is suspended. However, the institutional body which would have to agree on his dismissal has a different opinion about the available evidence than the Office’s management. For this reason, no decision has been taken so far about this matter.

Our translator was correct about the factual errors, which do reveal some misunderstanding or insufficient background (the author at Heise did not make such errors). The above also repeated some lies from the management — lies that we wrote about and rebutted earlier today [1, 2].

“To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt.”This is not good journalism. The EPO’s management and spokespeople cannot be trusted. To avoid such embarrassments (Süddeutsche Zeitung‘s Katja Riedel in this case) we strongly urge journalists not to take anything from the EPO’s mouth without a barrel of salt. They have an appalling track record when it comes to truthful statements, they're pushy, and they’re backed by professional liars (with a budget of nearly $1 million per year).

Another translation of the article in German was sent to us later.

“Here is a translation of the requested article published in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung“, wrote this translator. “IMHO it is interesting to note that this short article contains substantial errors. In particular the head of the union will not challenge to decision in front of a “Internal Patent Court”. This just doesn’t make sense! The third staff member referred to in the Article is supposedly Malika Weaver. I haven’t read the text of the sanctions against her but the assertion that the “third staff member will not be promoted in the next three years” seems at least ridiculous. Not being promoted in the next three years is, according to the new career system, commonplace for the average staff and therefore not a disciplinary measure. Is FTI alkso writing for the Süddeutsche Zeitung?”

Well, perhaps. FTI Consulting is already funneling EPO money into publications such as IAM 'magazine'. Anyway, here is the second translation:

January the 15th, 2016, 18:55

Dispute escalates

Dismissed union boss

European Patent Office justifies the expulsion with reputational campaign

By Katja Riedel

The ongoing conflict between parts of the workforce and the head of the European Patent Office, President Benoît Battistelli, has reached a new level of escalation on Friday. Battistelli has decided to dismiss the head of the union Suepo and another union member. This emerges from an internal letter, which we have at the Süddeutsche Zeitung. A third staff member, against whom the Office has also conducted a disciplinary procedure will, not get any promotion in the next three years.

Battistelli and an appointed disciplinary committee, in which also staff representatives supposedly have sat, considered it thus as proven, that the union boss had participated in a defamatory campaign against the Office. She was also accused that she had bullied other elected staff representatives. She has always denied this vehemently; she rose through her lawyers in turn allegations that she had been bullied for years. She now plans to ask the President to revise the decision. If this is not successful, she wants to sue with an internal Patent Court (TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: rather internal appeal committee). These procedures usually take years. For almost two years, a bitter conflict is raging around the European Patent Office, whose headquarters are located in Munich. Again and again thousands of employees went against Frenchman Battistelli on the road. They complained that they were denied basic labour rights. The Office alleges that the protests alone have the effect of a smear campaign against the Office management. There is a case still pending against a patent judge, member of the Technical Board of Appeal. According to an internal investigation report, he is said to have been masterminding said campaign with a few other people . He himself denies this vehemently. Incriminating documents that were found with him, should he have wanted to collected out of private interest. The man is suspended. The competent body which would have to agree with a dismissal, however, has a different view on the collected evidence. For this reason a decision is still pending.

Judging by this translation too, the facts aren’t quite right. Was there any fact-checking at all? A rushed job perhaps? Either way, these aren’t the facts. They’re Battistelli’s warped version of the ‘truth’ (reality distortion). Did someone pull Katja Riedel’s strings? We’ve heard all sorts of stories about how the EPO’s PR team manipulates journalists.

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”

Andre Gide

EPO Management and Its PR Team a Den of Liars, Even Lying to Their Own Staff

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

I did not have… to tolerate people who speak about my abuses.

Clinton did not have...

Summary: A closer look at the nonsensical prose used to justify the firing of staff representatives rather than those whom they complained about

THE EPO is so scandalous that long ago it gave up pretending that it can be trusted. Why are some journalists still swallowing all the lies from the EPO?

After reportedly lying to its staff, we’re seriously left wondering why any journalists at all are willing to believe the EPO's PR team (backed by an American PR firm with an EPO budget of nearly $1 million per year), let aside Battistelli whose name goes at the bottom of many ludicrous statements that the EPO’s PR team keeps linking to (even several times per day and even one week later).

The letter which we showed here beforehand, demonstrating how the EPO's PR team characterises staff union busting as "social dialogue" or "union recognition" (spreading this lie to the media at the moment) was, according to our source, “sent before the three officials were “liquidated”.”

Now we have the following “communiqué” with Battistelli’s name at the bottom (maybe it’s ghostwritten by his department and just signed by him):

Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016

Communiqué 2/2016

15.01.2016

Outcome of disciplinary procedures

Dear colleagues,

Last November, I informed you that instances of anti-social and unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).

Disciplinary procedures were launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious breaches, justifying high sanctions, including dismissal.

Before taking my decisions, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are staff representatives who enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular duties. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of the employees and have nothing to do with the social dialogue and staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders can not avoid personal liability.

The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging defamation campaign against the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to direct threats and coercion expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against EPO employees. Moreover, pressure has been brought against witnesses during the investigations and repetitive disclosures of confidential material have occurred, some linked to the security and safety of the Office and its staff.

In addition to the disrespect shown towards the Organisation and its legal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically the applicable rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their unlawful actions and a surprising lack of empathy towards the victims, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged their wrongdoings, nor did they express their intention not to repeat them.

An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including staff representatives and union leaders, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions, high sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are justified and proportionate.

Benoît Battistelli
President

Having just published the text of the EPO internal communiqué, now it’s time to respond to it by basically rewriting it as follows:

Home -> Organisation -> President -> The President -> Announcements -> 2016

Communiqué 2/2016

15.01.2016

Outcome of mock trials

Dear slaves,

Last November, I informed you that instances of whistle-blowing against my unlawful misconduct concerning a few employees had been established (see Communiqué. 17.11.2015).

Mock trials were duly launched and I have now received the opinions of the three disciplinary committees composed of representatives nominated by the management and the staff representation. I ignored these opinions, as they were designed to just give the illusion of peer judgment, then rewrote everything and exacerbated the judgment/punishment for I am a clue-ful autocrat. The disciplinary committees concerned have unanimously considered that the cases involved very serious acts of whistle-blowing, justifying high sanctions, which I made even more severe because they embarrassed me.

Before taking my personal decisions, for here we have an autocracy, not a meritocracy or a democracy, I have paid great attention to the fact that the employees involved are charismatic and popular so they enjoy a higher level of protection and freedom of expression, having in mind their particular threat to my undisclosed (but astronomical) annual salary. It must be underlined that these cases relate to personal failures of my regime which has nothing to do with social dialogue and actively denies staff representative activities. The status of staff representatives or union leaders cannot expose abuse at the managerial ranks. Me and my homies have immunity and impunity.

The charges relate to the active participation in the very damaging (to my reputation) whistle-blowing campaign. It dares to mention the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members; to misinterpreted jokes and disagreement expressed against staff members and staff representatives; and to undue financial and moral pressure against managers. Moreover, pressure has been brought against managers of the mock trial during the mock trial and repetitive disclosures of confidential material about a secretive mock trial have occurred, some linked to the perceived (by me) security and safety of the Office and my homies.

In addition to the disrespect shown towards the abusive management and its illegal framework, the respondents, prior and during the procedures, disregarded systematically my unjust rules and persisted in their behaviour despite several reminders. They showed a complete lack of awareness concerning the consequences of their free speech and a surprising lack of empathy towards the accusers, which is impossible to overlook. None of them acknowledged my accusations or accepted guilt, nor did they express their intention not to ignore me.

An employment relationship is based on trust, loyalty and respect of a corpus of rules. Any employee, including a President, has to act in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT. After considering all the facts and individual actions — actions that showed I had been repeatedly ignoring rules, not acting in the interest of the Organisation and according to its rules, as confirmed by the consistent case law of the ILOAT — I decided I must shoot the messengers. High sanctions, including dismissal in two cases, are necessary to protect my monarchy. Long live Team Battistelli!

Benoît Battistelli
Sun King

“In the Hardon dismissal letter,” one person told us, “there is a clear allusion to the [actions against a judge] and an admission that spyware is installed on PCs.” That letter too was signed by Battistelli. This isn’t just an autocrat but a vicious and merciless one. Battistelli is not even being honest to his own staff!

“Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heal that has crushed it.”

Mark Twain

01.14.16

La Ultima disfrazada de ¨Abierto¨ de Microsoft Dá la FALSA Impresión de su Propietario Spyware/Malware es ¨Abierto¨ y Amigable a Linux

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 6:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/English

Publicado en Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 7:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Una nueva clase del caballo de Troya

Wooden idol

Sumario: Abraza, extiende y extingue (E.E.E.) tácticas que todavía siguen siendo usadas en un esfuerzo de poner el código proprietario de Microsoft (con puertas tráseras) y sus formatos propietarios (candado de Microsoft) dentro de la competencia.

Hace un año escribimos acerca de la adqusición de Revolution Analytics por parte de Microsoft. Microsoft está comprando partes de la academia (recuerdén Moodle), trayéndoles al campo proprietario. R estará MUERTO pronto. No será lo que solía ser. ABRAZA, EXTIENDE y EXTINGUE (E.E.E.) trabaja de esta manera, así que más tarde removerán los bits que no son de Microsot, incluyendo formatos/estándares neutrales.

Muchos del las redes amigables a Microsoft escribierón acerca E.E.E [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. ¿Qué bueno es ¨LIBRE y ABIERTO¨ (para citar a IDG cuando trabaja en un stack proprietari con puertas traseras? Esto es E.E.E. en acción realmente (ahora en fase uno, el ¨ABRAZA¨). Simplemente mira quien está escribiendo acerca de esto [1, 2, 3, 4]. Muchos FANS de Microsoft. El vociferoso fan de Microsoft Tim Anderson trató de añadirle un ángulo de Linux:

Microsoft a puesto al público el Sérvidor R – para análisis estadísticos usando el lenguaje R – basado en software de Revolution Analytics, una compañía comprada por el gigante en Abril de 2015

Lo que solía ser una distribucion de R ahora llamada ¨Microsoft R Abierta¨, que es destinada para Windows, SUSE Linux, y Red Hat Linux.

Lo que solía ser de FOSS y GNU/Linux ha sido efectivamente secuestrada por Microsoft. ¿Cuáles de los de arriba la gente piensa que Microsoft recomendará? Microsoft sigue ARRIMANDO SU CÓDIGO PROPRIETARIO en GNU/Linux no por que ayuda otras plataformas pero por que está TRATANDO DE DOMINAR OTRAS PLATAFORMAS, potencialmente DESTRUYÉNDOLAS a voluntad. Un artículo de Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols dice ¨Microsoft abre la JavaScript engine de su web browser Edge, planea modificarla para Linux¨, pero ¿GNU/Linux necesita esto? Esto es un esfuerzo para EXTINGUIR otras JavaScript engines que al presente son FOSS y no controladas por Microsoft. (Ese es su objetivo controlar todo en todo el mundo). Hemos escrito acerca de esto anteriormente y considerado ¨disfrazado de abierto¨ por que el todo permanece proprietario. Microsoft está jugando con nuestras percepciones. La misma jugada fué alabada por Microsoft Emil, sitios amigables to Microsoft, así como sitios que abrogan por Microsoft.

“Microsoft está jugando con nuestras percepciones.”Microfot no esta jugando amablemente aquí y el CODIGO NO ES SEGURO. Todavía otro serio hueco ha sido encontrado [1] en Vista 10, el que es promovido como ¨ABIERTO¨ (si ABIERTO a la NSA y cualquier agencia gubernamental que se los pida) usando a Chakra (no la GNU/Linux distribución, Microsft sólo está SECUESTRANDO nombres de otros projectos FOSS de nuevo, simplemente como VistA or OpenOffice). Microsoft Emil [2] y otros ahora están tratando de presionar al pueblo de adoptar el SYSTEMA OPERATIVO FAVORITO DE LA NSA (Vista 10) usando el alarmismo de ¨seguridad¨, así como Microsoft está abandonando sus propios browsers EXCEPTO el último y más HÓSTIL PARA LA PRIVACIDAD (propietario con disfraz de open por medio de ´Chakra´).

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Windows 10 shattered Remote Desktop’s security defaults – so get patching

    Microsoft reckons no one is actively exploiting the security vulnerabilities addressed in this month’s patch bundle, but it’s only a matter of time before criminals reverse-engineer the updates and target them.

  2. Microsoft ends support for IE8, IE9, IE10, and Windows 8

    Microsoft today ended support for old versions of Internet Explorer, including IE8, IE9, and IE10, as well as Windows 8. For the browsers, the company has also released a final patch (KB3123303) that includes the latest cumulative security updates and an “End of Life” upgrade notification.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts