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

10.23.16

Open Letter Exposing the Farce Which Was Battistelli’s ‘Social Conference’ Coinciding With Further (New) Attacks on EPO Staff Representatives

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reaffirming his position that he is in a war against truth itself

Battistelli liar
Source (original): Rospatent

Summary: A detailed letter reveals legitimate concerns expressed by staff representatives at the EPO ahead of the so-called Social Conference, in which we have highlighted severe factual flaws

WE PREVIOUSLY mentioned that SUEPO had sent a letter to Battistelli last month, with a copy sent to the Delegations of the Administrative Council. It was about their exclusion from the propaganda/lobbying event known as “Social Conference” (first of its kind, made up by Team Battistelli to cover their collective behinds).

Another letter, an open letter in fact, was sent to Mr Battistelli. “SUEPO officials from Berlin and Munich write to the President,” a source quoted for us, “indicating that in the current circumstances they will not attend the “Social Conference”.”

Here are the contents of this open letter (which is apparently not open to the wider public, probably due to fear of retribution):

INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L’OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

Zentralbüro
Central Bureau
Bureau central

28 September2016
su16117cl – 0.3.1/0.2.1

OPEN LETTER to the President of the European Patent Office, Mr Battistelli

Subject: “Social Conference” 11 October 2016

Dear Mr Battistelli,

we have learned that a “social conference” will take place on 11 October in Munich with the alleged goal of improving the social dialog in the EPO.

Meanwhile we take note that after 6 disciplinary measures have been hanged on EPO Staff Representatives, comprising two dismissals and four demotions, over the past 2 years, further three colleagues are being targeted, according to the minutes of the last B28 session1

As elected union officials of SUEPO, the union representing roughly half of the Staff in the EPO, we share the concerns and questions raised by the Local Staff Committee in The Hague (see Annex 1) regarding the so-called “Social Conference”. We take note that at this date these questions remain unanswered.

In light of the above, and in combination with the fact that the systematic persecution of Staff Representatives continues unabated, the undersigned consider that none of the conditions are met for such a conference to bear fruits. Further the undersigned consider that their participation will be misused as a “fig leaf” to cover the toxic nature of the present “social dialog” and management policies.

In solidarity with our colleagues of the Local SUEPO Branch in The Hague (see Annex 2), and Chairmen of SUEPO Central (su16116cl, see Annex 3), the undersigned will not attend the Social Conference.

Sincerely,
The elected SUEPO Officials:
Thomas Franchitti
Mathieu Guillaume
Florent Béraud

Cc: B28 Members, PD 4.3

____
1 : “The Board noted information provided by the President about 3 current investigations/disciplinary proceedings involving SUEPO members in The Hague Staff Representatives


SOCIAL CONFERENCE 2016

Dear Colleagues:

The Office has announced on intranet that the so-called “Social Conference” will take place on 11 October 2016. Concomitantly, an update has been published in the latest Gazette (page 11).

From these announcements we learn:

1. The Conference will be led by consultants

2. The stakeholders are: representatives from the Office’s management and staff, as well as members of the Staff Committees and recognized trade union, and delegates of the Administrative Council.

3. The Conference will include presentations about the Social Study (PwC), the OHSRA (WellKom et al) and the Financial Report (Deloitte).

4. Some 8-12 workshops will follow to “identify key elements of each study and the next steps for a sustainable EPO”.

5. Topics of discussion explicitly mentioned are:

-Social dialogue;
-Financial sustainability and social package;
-Well-being at the workplace;
-Change management and readiness to change.

In the Gazette, the President referred to a number of topics on the “social agenda” but it remains unclear whether these topics will be subject of discussion. For instance:

- The Technologia study is not mentioned as being part of the agenda.
- The President is silent about Council resolution CA/26/16, and about the fate of a number of staff representatives and union officials subjected to investigations/disciplinary proceedings.

Putting the cart before the horse?

The Social Conference ought to be the starting point for restoring social peace, justice and respect for fundamental rights and values.


We wonder whether it is wise to start discussing and comparing details like social packages and change management at this juncture. Are we not putting the cart before the horse? Should we not first discuss and agree on the principles that should pull the cart?

In our opinion, a useful starting point would be to agree that the fundamental rights and the values deriving therefrom govern our dealing with each other and discuss how to make all of our laws and practices subject to them. The second step would be to design and agree on an effective mechanism to enforce compliance with the said rights and values. Once that is in place, all details should fall into place without too much effort, and with little discord.

Prerequisites:

Having said this, if the Office and the Administrative Council are serious in wanting to involve staff (and to be seen/perceived by staff as doing so), and in wanting to identify key elements to move forward, then the Social Conference must:

- be well prepared,
- be endowed with sufficient resources and safeguards
- address the essential topics and
- have a clear follow up.

a) Preparation

The outcome of all three studies, including the essential raw data, conclusions and recommendations by the consultants should be ready by now. All stakeholders should have time to study them and collect feedback, such that the participants in the conference can represent their respective groups and not merely express their personal opinions.

- When are staff representatives and staff going to receive the studies?
- Is the Technologia study going to form part of the studies to be discussed and evaluated? If not, why?

For an efficient and productive process, it would be helpful if the stakeholders (the Administrative Council, Management, the Staff Representation and the Unions) submitted in writing, as far as possible, their comments and proposals on the various topics. However we have not seen or heard any such call from the organiser of the event (the President). Obviously it will be impossible to collect feedback on the spot.

- Is Management willing to take up such an initiative and to create a respective intranet platform as it did on other occasions?

- What measures has Management foreseen to enable the remaining staff representatives to collect feedback from staff? Is it going to give more time resources in the weeks before the event? Is it going to allow


general assemblies? If not, how are staff representatives supposed to collect feedback?

- The status of some stakeholders invited (“representatives from the Office’s management and staff”, the “recognized union”) is unclear given the vocabulary used in the intranet announcement and the Gazette interview.

- What is the difference in role during the conference between “representatives from staff” and “staff representatives”?

- Are the President and the AC aware that such expressions undermine the statutory role of staff representation?

- Are they aware that such phrasing raises concerns that the conference will be abused for bypassing the statutory consultation requirements and bodies, especially since the President in the Gazette sees this Conference as a “tool” to restore social peace?

b) Resources & Safeguards

- Clearly, ONE DAY is insufficient for a proper, meaningful conference, unless stakeholders have had the opportunity to get thoroughly acquainted with the outcome of the studies. There will obviously be no time for a proper dialogue, especially in view of the extensive topics on the agenda.

From what we know so far it appears that about half a day will be spent on the presentation of the studies. Management and its Representatives will have had all time necessary to study them, whereas staff participating will have to digest the material via oral information in a few hours.

- Is this a good starting point to convince all parties involved that a proper dialogue is feasible?

- A number of workshops will be held wherein staff representatives will be expected to participate. The number of workshop is such that the remaining staff representatives will inevitably be isolated from each other, having to improvise on new information. They could be systematically outnumbered or ignored, making them virtually irrelevant in the discussions.

- How does the Office intend to conduct the workshops so that they prove to be a solid forum to identify the key issues identified by all stakeholders?

- As for the safeguards, it is clear that all stakeholders should feel free and safe to discuss. An essential first step would be, in our opinion, to fulfil the mandate given by the Council resolution CA/26/16.

How is the President going to implement resolution CA/26/16? When?


c) Essential topics

- It is unclear what topics will actually be treated. We note that the President, in his Gazette interview, refers several times to a Social Agenda and mentions its various points. However only very few of the burning issues are mentioned in said interview.

-Who has chosen the topics to be treated in the workshops?
-Will the topics of discussion consist exclusively of points chosen by the President?
-Will other stakeholders – the AC, the consultants, staff representation – be asked to give their input, and/or be allowed to put other topics on the agenda? If so, when?

- The latest developments on the juridical front (the decision of the EBoA on the suspended DG3 judge; recent ATILO cases; Dutch Court of Appeal decision) indicate that a number of Office decisions and practices cast doubt on the Office’s ability to comply with a number of generally accepted principles of due process. Also internally, serious concerns have been voiced about the adequacy and lawfulness of the investigation unit’s operation, the disciplinary procedures, and of our conflict resolution system.

- Will these be among the main issues to be discussed?

One of the main grievances of staff is that the AC has chosen a rather passive stance for a very long time; that it hasn’t made any visible effort to listen to staff’s version of the story, that it hasn’t given staff the same attention it has given to the President and that it hasn’t exercised its supervising role as it should have given the seriousness of the conflict. In particular, although the AC regularly holds meetings with the President, it has never given the same chances to staff to bring forward their cases.

-Does the AC consider setting up a forum for this purpose?
-If not, through what statutory mechanisms can it guarantee to receive complete and adequate feedback from staff?
-Which social partner does the AC recognise as official?

d) Follow up

Given the many open wounds it appears impossible to process all burning issues.

-Are there any next steps that will treat the individual / specific topics in depth and substance? Or is the current event supposed to be the one and only medicine for all ailments?
-What is the realistic expectation of the practical outcome of the Conference?


Our preliminary conclusions:

We are of the opinion that the current crisis will only come to a good end if enough time and true volition are invested without delay to listen to each other’s grievances and to reconcile different views. We urge the Administrative Council to guarantee a proper conference and the President to act accordingly.

It would be most unfortunate if the event proved to be nothing more than yet another self-serving PR event to sweep the problems under the carpet.

Given the current policy in respect of the Staff Representation, it is very difficult to be optimistic in this respect. Nevertheless, we, the few remaining members of LSCTH, are willing to put our energy and creativity in sorting things out and honouring our mandate. However, we are not prepared to play the role of the President’s fig leaf.

Therefore, we invite the President and the Administrative to answer our questions without delay, and take all measures necessary to have staff meaningfully involved, and to ensure that the conference can be held in a constructive atmosphere.

We want to make it clear that we are not going to contribute to

-futile PR exercises,
-bypassing the consultative procedures foreseen in the Codex,
-justifying the current tendency to disregard the prerogatives and functions of the staff representation,
-whitewashing arbitrariness.

Sincerely,
Your Local Staff Committee The Hague


INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L’OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

Ortssektion Den Haag
Local section The Hague
Section locale La Haye

20 September 2016
su16030hl

“Social Conference” of 11 October 2016

Dear Mr Battistelli,

We have learned about the Social Conference scheduled for 11 October.

SUEPO, who represents about half of the EPO workforce, has not been invited. Over the past two and half years you have consistently threatened and/or heavily sanctioned the majority of the elected officials of a Union you called in public a “mafia like organisation“. In the circumstances, we will obviously not attend voluntarily. (If you want to oblige any of us to attend as “members of Staff Committees”, we would only participate under duress).

We truly regret seeing that, rather than fostering social dialogue by respecting the terms of the March resolution of the Administrative Council (CA/26/16), you have chosen to continue persecuting SUEPO and its elected officials, most recently in The Hague.

We also regret that you do not seem to take seriously the requirements of a bona-fide social conference. If its aim is to launch a program to restore social peace, it is inconsistent for you to refuse to discuss the results of the Technologia survey, or to consider our counterproposal for a framework agreement between the EPO and SUEPO.

Sincerely,
Alain Rosé
Jesús Areso
Philippe Couckuyt
François Brévier

cc: B28 members


INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L’OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

Zentralbüro
Central Bureau
Bureau central

27 September 2016
su16116cl – 4.6

“Social Conference” of 11 October 2016

Dear Mr Battistelli,

We refer to the letter addressed to you on 20.09.2016 from SUEPO The Hague on the subject of the Social Conference, which remains unanswered.

SUEPO, who represents about half of the EPO workforce, has not been invited. Over the past two and half years you have consistently threatened and/or heavily sanctioned the majority of the elected officials of a Union you called in public a “mafia like organisation“. In the circumstances, we will obviously not attend voluntarily. (If you want to oblige any of us to attend as “members of Staff Committees”, we would only participate under duress)

We truly regret seeing that, rather than fostering social dialogue by respecting the terms of the March resolution of the Administrative Council (CA/26/16), you have chosen to continue persecuting SUEPO and its elected officials, most recently in The Hague, cf. minutes of the Board 28 meeting of 8 September.

We also regret that you do not seem to take seriously the requirements of a bona-fide social conference. If its aim is to launch a program to restore social peace, it is inconsistent for you to refuse to discuss the results of the Technologia survey, or to consider our counterproposal for a framework agreement between the EPO and SUEPO.

Yours sincerely,
Joachim Michels
Chair SUEPO Central
Elizabeth Hardon
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Munich Alain Rosé
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO The Hague
Wolfgang Manntz
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Berlin David Dickinson
Vice-Chair SUEPO Central
Chair SUEPO Vienna

cc: Delegations of the Administrative Council

This whole PR exercise from Battistelli seems to have only exacerbated things and made the EPO associated with propaganda mills. If Battistelli thought he could simply buy an alternate reality and fool the well-educated examiners, than he thinks too much like a politician addressing (and lying to) “the masses”.

10.22.16

Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Leaked Document Shows PwC’s Dishonesty and Misrepresentation of EPO Staff

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A leaked document about PwC

Summary: An in-depth analysis (but not comprehensive, just preliminary) of the so-called ‘study’ from PwC, which basically did what it was paid for (pay to say)

THE OTHER day we published some raw material from PwC. Soon afterwards, in part 2 of this little 'series', we presented a comparison that had been leaked to us. Well, an insider has also just leaked to us a much more comprehensive document (from which the latter material had been snapped), pertaining to those so-called 'studies' which are accessible only internally. With literally thousands of disgruntled employees it’s no wonder almost everything ends up being sent to us.

We have uploaded the leaked document [PDF] and wish to highlight some bits from it: “Obviously, the EPO management’s usual “market-driven” mantra has been taken on board by PwC without any form of critical analysis. In doing so, PwC has simply missed the elephant in the room which is the original mission of the EPO as defined in the preamble of the EPC: the EPO is a public service entity put in place to protect inventions and serve innovation in the interest of the public at large. The real aim of a public service is not to “win”, or to “compete”, or to “grow” or to “propel business forward”.” [page 1]

“At the start, the study is presented as being based on an objective survey, solid fact-finding and the application of genuine, independent analysis. Further reading begins to cast serious doubts about these three assertions.” [page 2]

Second, the study is remarkable for what it conceals: it is incomprehensible how a consultant can produce a 300-page analysis of the EPO social situation without once mentioning the main union SUEPO who represent more than 50% of its staff. [page 2]

“Last, most of the key starting-points of the study, such as the information produced by the administration 8 , present policy mantra and top management philosophy, are simply taken for granted i without question.” [page 2]

As a conclusion, criticising the “us and them” mentality in the Office comes in handy when identifying the culprits in the Office. By coincidence, PwC shares the approach used by top management over the last years over and over again to always never blame themselves but instead point fingers at others. [page 4]

Fact is that, leaving the PwC comments and recommendations aside, the objective parts of the social study correlates well with the outcome of the Technologia survey in 2016; it confirms the clear worsening of the situation, in particular in terms of Staff dissatisfaction (see Annex). It is in line with the opinion expressed on numerous occasions by Staff and their Representatives and complements the ample media coverage on the present situation. It is all the more remarkable then that at no stage the reforms themselves come under scrutiny. [page 5]

We may have a lot more to say about PwC’s so-called ‘study’. EPO staff is rightly angry about blatant propaganda being cast as “study”. Propaganda mills or liars for hire have no room in an inherently scientific institution such as the EPO.

10.21.16

Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Survey Comparison Shows Serious Deterioration and Efforts by PwC to Disguise the Truth

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC): best propaganda money can buy?

PwC survey

Survey Comparison. Large version.

Summary: The latest output from PwC turns out to be even worse than initially thought, indicating that not only did it find a degradation in the EPO but also attempted to hide/obscure it

THE situation at the EPO is getting out of hand, to the point where Battistelli has made up some new and truly silly “Social Conference” (more waste of money which corrupts truth and journalism) in which to lie and deny the crisis.

In no sane institution where accountability exists would Battistelli have kept his job this long.

“We are hoping that more people will leak to us material that’s related to this.”Looking at a comparison of surveys, it becomes ever more apparent that not only Battistelli lies; the people whom he hired are lying as well.

The picture “Survey Comparison” (it’s really self-explanatory), as shown above, is quite revealing and it relates to the study’s criticism (see “Battistelli-Commissioned PwC 'Study': The Raw Outcome Shows Distortion of the Facts at the EPO's Notorious 'Social Conference'“).

“Survey Comparison” is a comparison of the 2016 results with those of 2011 and it “reveals that the deterioration of the social climate is reflected also by the data collected by PwC, despite their efforts of hiding the truth,” a source told us. We are hoping that more people will leak to us material that’s related to this. We actually got some leaks on the very same day the 'studies' got published internally. We rely on these leaks to tell the truth. Properly scrutinised, these surveys can actually be used against Battistelli, which is perhaps why these never got released to the public (only flawed “conclusions” were advertised and linked to 3 times over the past week in Twitter).

10.20.16

EPO Spokesman Lies to IP Watch in Order to Save Face and Save the King (Battistelli)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli lies

Summary: Rewriting history (revisionism) regarding Battistelli and what was demanded amidst abusive behaviour from him

THE IP-CENTRIC MEDIA, even by a so-called “conspiracy of silence” as the late Pieter Hintjens once dubbed it, has become somewhat complicit with the EPO. It continues to stand by quietly and idly while the EPO is being destroyed and buys the media. Sometimes it even throws a bone to Battistelli or offers him a platform (for puff pieces and lies).

Quite frankly, we lost faith in much of the above media. Not even the local media in Munich is responsive anymore. It shuts its eyes, shuts its mouth, shuts its ears and pretends that EPO (or Eponia) does not exist in Munich and that nothing interesting or noteworthy happens there other than banal granting of patents. On IP Kat not covering EPO scandals (no lack of them!) anymore, one person wrote this yesterday: “Disappointing lack of EPO information here these days. Has Merpel been neutered? Or worse still had an accident with a diplomatic car. Let’s hope she’s happily chasing small furry creatures in Denmark and will be back soon.”

This alludes to this series of stories and this photo of a diplomatic car. Why are we the only site covering this and what does that say about European media?

The other day IP Watch (a decent site most of the time) issued a rare report about the EPO. It doesn’t write so much about the EPO anymore (more WIPO focus), but it used to write about the EPO more habitually. Readers should see the comment on this article, based on one item (from May). The article has been updated with damage control from Team Battistelli and it now says:

[Update:] Asked to confirm whether current disciplinary procedures have been suspended pending the December AC meeting, an EPO spokesman said later that the council “did not ask the President to take such a position.” Moreover, he emailed, the disciplinary committee is equally composed of management and staff representatives, and it decides independently on its recommendation, uninfluenced by any external authority. [end update]

Since it includes gender (“spokesman”), we are guessing it was Rainer. We have heard some unpleasant things about him from journalists and as we noted about a year ago, nowadays the EPO lies both to journalists and to staff (and to job applicants). These people simply cannot be trusted!

See the remainder of the article and the comment:

The statement of the EPO spokesman (see the above [Update]), is typical of EPO, and incorrect:

While it is true that the Council “did not ask the President to take such a position,” by the help of an official resolution during its October 2016 meeting, the Office is nevertheless walking a fine line:

Firstly, during the last Council meeting, several delegations, in particular CH, FR, UK and NL, insisted in clear words that no decision should be taken on running disciplinary procedures. Secondly, the position of the president is in contrast with the Administrative Council’s (AC) resolution of this March, which requested him, inter alia,

“to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so, and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation” and

“pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken, to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions”

The two requirements “that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so” and “pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken” would clearly not be met if the president would take a decision on any disciplinary proceedings before revised regulations on investigative/disciplinary procedures have been approved by the AC. The requirement “to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions” would not be met either since the proposals the president presented at the 149th AC meeting did not meet legal standards, such that the delegations forced him to withdraw them.

The first statement of the EPO spokesman that the Council “did not ask the President to take such a position,” is thus incorrect; the Council asked the President “to take such a position” in its March resolution.
The second statement in the email that “the disciplinary committee … decides independently on its recommendation,” is well-worded, but – irrespective of whether it is true – diverts the reader from the main subject; the Administrative Council’s resolution of this March.

By taking a decision on any disciplinary proceedings under the current regulations, the EPO president would be in breach of the March resolution. The Council would be obliged to dismiss him.

As we said back in May, Battistelli should have been sacked, but his pet chinchilla (Kongstad) continues to protect him no matter what, even hiding his contract and salary. What kind of oversight of this?!?!

10.19.16

Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: The Raw Outcome Shows Distortion of the Facts at the EPO’s Notorious ‘Social Conference’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO Staff Survey
Larger/full view

Summary: Results of the Staff Survey carried out by PwC (at the behest of Team Battistelli and the expense of EPO budget), in order to provide some propaganda for Battistelli’s expensive Social Conference

“In the Social Study,” say EPO insiders, “PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC] carried out a staff survey in which 4,065 employees of the EPO participated. As their study presents the results of this survey filtered by the interpretation of PricewaterhouseCoopers, we compiled the actual statistics in the [above] diagram. This helps to give a neutral overview of the feelings of staff as presented in the survey.”

The EPO’s management reportedly excluded a lot of unhappy staff (although it’s based mostly on hearsay/rumours). We wrote about this before. Compare these results to a study commissioned by SUEPO rather than by this liar in chief, Battistelli, who just needed ammunition to justify cracking down on staff and the staff union. This so-called ‘Social Conference’ was just another one of his ludicrous lobbying events. He acts like a politician, which is basically what he is.

10.18.16

The ‘Sarah Sharps’ of Microsoft: Not the Kind of Scandal the Media Cares Enough to Write About

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 7:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related to this:

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: women, don’t ask for a raise

Woman

Summary: Another example of the large (industrial) scale of sexual discrimination at Microsoft — a company that tries to advertise itself as diverse or tolerant and stigmatise Free/Open Source software (FOSS) as intolerant and/or not diverse

SEXUAL orientation-related and sexual discrimination at at workplace are a common theme. Microsoft’s propaganda mills, however, tried to stigmatise FOSS as hostile to minorities, women, and whatever else isn’t white, straight, middle-aged men.

Microsoft has got quite some audacity though. Microsoft’s hostility towards women [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and hostility towards gay people (or homophobia) [1, 2] were covered here before. Even Microsoft’s new CEO came under fire for it. The latest example of Microsoft sexism is reaching the press now. To quote The Register (one among very few that covered it):

Microsoft will have to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging that its employee rating system was biased against women.

A US district court in Washington has tossed out [PDF] the Redmond giant’s motion to dismiss a complaint lobbed at it by three women engineers, who allege the system for evaluating engineering and technical positions unfairly penalized them.

At issue is the Windows giant’s “Connect” system, the evaluation method Microsoft used to replace the much maligned “stack ranking” process for evaluating employee performance.

The engineers allege that the review system relies on manager and peer input from a group that is overwhelmingly male and, as a result, the female employees they evaluated may have missed out on raises and promotions.

“Plaintiffs allege these performance evaluation methods are ‘invalid’ because they ‘set arbitrary cutoffs among performers with similar performance’ and are ‘not based on valid and reliable performance measures’,” the court’s ruling, dated October 14, reads.

As we noted several months ago, sexism at Microsoft is systemic and a year ago we noted that it's not really a FOSS issue, in spite of a stereotype created and spread by the likes of Microsoft. Hence the relevance to FOSS…

The Long History or Seeds of Control by Fear and Punishment at the EPO

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

WIPO and FIFA are small potatoes compared to the EPO…

Battistelli liar
Source (original): Rospatent

Summary: The latest hogwash from Team Battistelli (Pinocchio), the latest instance of software patents promotion by EPO Principal Director, and an old (decade-old) nugget of information from the Forum for Principal Directors

THE EPO has turned into an empire of lies, where the President has become virtually synonymous with Pinocchio, as we noted earlier today. The EPO not only lies a lot but also routinely breaks rules and laws (see this older tweet from October 7th, neglecting to say that the EPO does not obey the EPC, e.g. [1, 2]). Eponia has effectively detached itself from the Rule of Law.

Pinocchio wants the world to believe that nothing is amiss at the EPO. For the third time in less than a week the EPO is promoting this lie (for the self-deluding) that EPO staff is happy. “Our Social Conference enabled internal stakeholders to play an active role in the EPO’s future,” it said, but it wasn’t about stakeholders at all. In fact, the key stakeholders, like representatives of staff, were locked out. We’ll publish more details about that (best left for another day), having published some details earlier this month and last month. Here we have the latest puff piece in the “news” section of the EPO (warning: epo.org link). “A joint statement was signed by EPO Vice President Raimund Lutz and Brazilian Industry Minister Marcos Pereira,” it says, alluding to a deal with INPI (not the French one that ‘took over’ the EPO and perhaps stained it for good). “Under the PPH pilot,” says the news [sic], “patent applicants from Europe and from Brazil will be able to request accelerated patent prosecution at the EPO or at Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), which is expected to speed up the process and reduce costs for companies on both sides of the Atlantic.”

“Pinocchio wants the world to believe that nothing is amiss at the EPO.”As is often the case with these deals, the countries in question hardly have all that much at stake in the EPO. Take Cambodia for example (with zero patents at the EPO). Brazil has a massive population and not so few patents, but how many at the EPO? Not that many (relative to EU member states)…

Hogwash and marketing is what Raimund Lutz travels for.

The EPO has an affinity for Italy right now (not much of a prolific patenter either, or so we’re told) and it lobbies its politicians for the UPC amid Brexit, as noted here twice last week. Now it organises events in Italy (yet another one) and a separate new announcement says that “Maria Rosa Carreras from @OEPM_es will speak about the Quality at Source project at EPOPIC,” citing this new page with abstracts of talks (warning: epo.org link).

Curiously enough, based on this page at least, Grant Philpott’s talk will cover software patents. He just cannot help himself, can he? We wrote about it more than a year ago. Philpott, who absolutely does not want people to know what he did for Microsoft (enough to send me threatening letters about it), is propping up software patents again. Is it him who wrote the abstract which reads “software pervades through all technologies [thus] a greater debate on the patentability of software” or maybe an assistant of his? Whatever it is, such statements are tasteless, especially taking the EPC into account.

“The EPO has an affinity for Italy right now (not much of a prolific patenter either, or so we’re told) and it lobbies its politicians for the UPC amid Brexit, as noted here twice last week.”Here is the full abstract, complete with the “Industry 4.0″ buzzword: “The 4th Industrial Revolution – or “Industry 4.0″ – is the revolution of connectivity and distributed intelligence. It is characterised by driving technologies such as The Cloud, Big Data and the Internet of Things, and by the presence of computer technologies in every aspect of our lives. The consequences for IP are potentially tremendous, and they challenge some of the fundamental concepts of the system, such as the definition of “industry” and “inventor”. There will be a greater overlap and interplay between the types of rights, and as software pervades through all technologies a greater debate on the patentability of software. Patent offices will have to react to these changes, adapting their approaches. There will also be an impact on patent information and new challenges for patent searchers as a result of Industry 4.0.”

As a reminder, software patents are not allowed in Europe. Why do these people keep stomping on the EPC and the rules? Do they believe they’re somehow above the law and nobody will notice when they sidestep it?

Speaking of Principal Directors, someone sent us information related to them. “Today’s add-on,” we were told, is a “disgusting slide from something coined “Forum for Principal Directors”, back in 2006. Old, but very appalling, I hate the words “fear, isolation and punishment” even when being part of question, or discussion.”

Here is the inappropriate slide:

Philpott certainly used “fear, isolation and punishment” against me when he had EPO lawyers send me threatening legal letters late on a Friday night. Perhaps that’s just in the EPO’s culture, deeply embedded in the minds of the recruited and promoted (elevated to “Principal Director”, a fancy job title, along the lines of ranks at the British Army that Philpott came from*). These long ‘hooks’ of Eponia’s aggressive behaviour mean that while it enjoys immunity or impunity it feels absolutely eager to intimidate even bloggers who are far away from Eponia and have nothing to do with Eponia (except they write about it pro bono).
____
* Certainly not thick-skinned for one who served any military as people have, in the past, asked for their names to be removed but did not send me threatening letters in an effort to take down entire articles.

Battistelli Wants Us to Believe a Patent Office in a Freefall (EPO) is “Stronger and More Sustainable”

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Also see: New Leaked Document Shows Board 28 Surprised Battistelli and Had a Long Unilateral Argument With Him Over Union-Busting (‘Disciplinary Cases’), Called It a “Crisis”

EPO crisis
In the words of Board 28 (screenshot with filter)

Summary: Still in denial (or self-deluding for self indulgence), Battistelli writes about the EPO as though everything is rosy and people are happy

The latest lies from Battistelli are basically more of the same. His name inside the EPO has become virtually synonymous with Pinocchio and he continues to live in his fantasy world, surrounded by “yes men” who are equally brainwashed, self-deluding or simply afraid of the boss with his infamous tantrums. Here is the PR/communication people linking to the latest nonsense from Battistelli’s “blog” (warning: epo.org links may be spied on). We don’t want to repeat too many of his lies, but when he speaks of “first ever Social Conference in the history” of the EPO he basically means first time that very expensive lies and propaganda were needed. How much does it cost to distort the truth and why are Battistelli’s overseers allowing/tolerating this obvious case of waste and abuse (part of a broader pattern)?

We presume all of our readers already know what the “Social Conference” basically means. It’s a pack of lies that Battistelli bought from some private companies so that he can pretend to have an ‘independent’ assessment. “But for the event itself,” he says, “the true measure of success was the level of engagement by all. The number of requests to attend the conference far outstripped the number of places available and proceedings were followed online by thousands of our staff.”

Haha, that’s just rich!

“Whatever Battistelli does these days severely harms the reputation of the EPO; stakeholders are complaining.”We can imagine that some people chose to watch this horrifying parade of lies, maybe in order to ridicule it or watch how they were lied about. SUEPO was blocked from entering and no input was accepted. It’s like something out of the cookbook of North Korea’s regime. A week later these paid-for lies are being pushed/trotted out, right there in the EPO’s public Web site (while the actual documents are withheld internally). It’s total hogwash like WIPO’s hogwash just weeks ago.

Certainly, at this stage, Pinocchio Battistelli is just testing how long his nose can get before he’s unable to enter the door of his office, possibly having been belatedly dismissed by the Administrative Council. Whatever Battistelli does these days severely harms the reputation of the EPO; stakeholders are complaining.

We have become accustomed to these lies, which are getting more and more Orwellian (even absurd) over time and target not just the public but also staff and journalists (since last year). Does the JPO not know that Battistelli has all these skeletons in his closet? Why did it post this tweet (soon to be retweeted by the EPO) saying “JPO Commissioner Komiya had meeting with EPO’s President Battistelli and his colleagues”?

“No doubt a lot of money has been buried by Battistelli right there, if not just flushed down the toilet (or into the pockets of truly dodgy firms).”Battistelli (or Brexit) “will not be buried,” this new comment says, but “the Social Conference, on the other hand, never having breathed a single breath, so how would it ever get so far as to be buried?”

No doubt a lot of money has been buried by Battistelli right there, if not just flushed down the toilet (or into the pockets of truly dodgy firms).

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »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