04.14.21

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 17: Jawohl, Herr Minister!

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

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

Raimund Lutz, Heiko Maas and Christoph Ernst

Summary: A French-German co-production of “Yes, Minister!” starring Raimund Lutz, Heiko Maas and Christoph Ernst. Directed by Benoît Battistelli.

As we have seen, the matter of the EPO‘s deficient data protection framework was placed on the agenda [PDF] of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag at its meeting scheduled for 14 October 2015.

“All that remained for Ernst to do was to work the usual EPOnian “copypasta”…”In preparation for this meeting, Christoph Ernst was tasked with drafting the Justice Ministry’s submission to the Legal Affairs Committee.

As explained in the last part, Ernst was assisted in this task by his mentor, Raimund Lutz, EPO Vice-President (and former official of the Justice Ministry), who provided his protégé with a carefully formulated statement of the EPO’s position.

All that remained for Ernst to do was to work the usual EPOnian “copypasta” magic and serve up the result [PDF] in the form of a Memorandum (“Informationsvermerk”) for the Legal Affairs Committee.

Informationsvermerk
Ernst prepared the Justice Ministry’s Memorandum for the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag using the usual EPOnian “copypasta” skills.

In his Memorandum to the Legal Affairs Committee, Ernst parroted the old EPOnian myth about the “close alignment” between the EPO’s data protection framework and European data protection law.

“In his Memorandum to the Legal Affairs Committee, Ernst parroted the old EPOnian myth about the “close alignment” between the EPO’s data protection framework and European data protection law.”The Committee was informed about the EPO’s “relatively high standard of data protection compared to other international organizations” – as if that could be considered a source of comfort!

Ernst also took pains to point out that the establishment of independent external supervision, for example by the European Data Protection Supervisor, would impinge on “the institutional foundations of the EPO” and would require an amendment to the European Patent Convention.

This would in turn necessitate a diplomatic conference of the contracting states which meant that the change desired by the BfDl “could not be implemented easily or quickly”.

When it came to the controversial issue of covert surveillance, Ernst carefully followed the cues provided by Lutz and informed the Committee that “according to the internal law of the EPO, the computer surveillance was lawful and proportionate and did not violate the rights of the person concerned”.

In any case – so the Committee was told – there was no need for concern because anybody who considered that their rights had been violated would have adequate access to “legal protection” via the EPO’s data protection officer – aptly described by Florian Müller of FOSS Patents as a “dictator’s minion” – and via the organisation’s notoriously dysfunctional internal appeal procedures.

Based on these considerations, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag was informed of the BMJV’s opinion that “a regulatory gap is not considered to exist”.

“When it came to the controversial issue of covert surveillance, Ernst carefully followed the cues provided by Lutz…”Finally, Ernst assured the Committee that “the Justice Ministry will continue – both within and outside the Administrative Council – to ensure compliance with high data protection standards”.

For good measure, the Memorandum concludes with another generous serving of humbug about the “Current social situation at the EPO”.

Ernst explained here that “[t]he BMJV is actively working to improve the situation at the EPO and has been instrumental in initiating a renewal of the social dialogue in the Administrative Council, which is to take the form of a trialogue between the EPO President, the staff unions and representatives of the Administrative Council” and he emphasised that “the BMJV conducts many background discussions with all sides and is continuously striving for a fresh start”.

All of this neatly skirts around the elephant in the room, namely that the underlying cause of the social conflict at the EPO was the failure of the Administrative Council – under Ernst’s stewardship – to enforce its authority over the rogue Office President, the latter-day Corsican despot Battistelli.

It seems that Ernst’s “copypasta” Memorandum was enough to persuade the honourable members of the Legal Affairs Committee that everything was fine and dandy in the fairytale land of EPOnia and that there was no need for further action on their part.

The members of the Committee were also told in no uncertain terms that – even if they were inclined to pursue the matter further – the change desired by the BfDl would require a diplomatic conference and for this reason “could not be implemented easily or quickly”.

And so it was that – with the aid and assistance of the head of the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs – Christoph Ernst managed to head Ms Voßhoff and her posse off at the pass, thereby averting the “doomsday scenario” of a public exposure of the deficiencies in the organisation’s data protection framework.

“All of this neatly skirts around the elephant in the room, namely that the underlying cause of the social conflict at the EPO was the failure of the Administrative Council – under Ernst’s stewardship – to enforce its authority over the rogue Office President, the latter-day Corsican despot Battistelli.”To the great relief of Team Battistelli the impending threat of external “interference” in the affairs of the autonomous fiefdom of EPOnia had been successfully neutralised and the spectre of a diplomatic conference was banished for the foreseeable future.

Of course no other outcome could have realistically been expected, given that the German Justice Minister at the time in question was Heiko Maas.

In the next part we shall take a closer look at Justice Minister Maas and his relationship with the EPO during the Battistelli era.

Over 1,000 EPO Workers Initiate Legal Challenge Against the EPO’s Attack on Salaries (in Defiance of Assurances Made to Workers Who Relocate to Another Country With Whole Families)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO open letter

Summary: The EPO’s attack on workers and pensioners isn’t going ahead without challenge; while the “Mafia” (what EPO workers call the management) loots the organisation it takes away money from the workers — i.e. from besieged folks who do all the work and face growing workloads during a pandemic

THE Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP) is a misnomer or a euphemism for crackdown on patent examiners past and present. The crackdown started with Benoît Battistelli, who in effect began looting the institution. Systematically, undeterred. Nobody holds them accountable for it!

50 Euro“It is hardly surprising that many colleagues and pensioners (at least 1.200 requesters) are now taking legal action against the new Salary Adjustment Procedure,” the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO wrote this month. “We understand from a President’s [António Campinos] letter of 25 March that he intends to reject the requests for review and he is already planning the next step of requesting a test-case procedure at the internal Appeals Committee. In this reply to his letter, we explain why we are currently reluctant to recommend to staff to identify test appellants. However, we are interested in contributing to the proper administration of justice. We would therefore be willing to support a bona fide proposal to the AC leading to a decision that the result of the litigation on the salary adjustment procedure will be applied to all employees and former employees of the EPO as well as their successors in title.”

We’re reproducing the full letter below:

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO

ISAR – Room 1081

OPEN LETTER

Reference: sc21044cl
Date: 01.04.2020

Your letter of 25 March 2021 – Legal proceedings on the Salary Adjustment Procedure

Dear Mr Campinos,

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) regrets that you submitted a proposal for a new salary adjustment procedure (CA/19/20) to the Administrative Council (AC) that had not found the consent of the CSC. Although a manageable number of test appellants lodged requests for reviews inter alia against the flawed consultation process on your proposal and against the resulting freeze of salaries and pensions in the second half of 2020, you still decided to submit an adjustment with effect from 1 January 2021 of salaries (CA/66/20) to the AC.

The resulting salaries and pensions are in breach of basic legal principles, such as equal treatment at different places of employment. It is easy to understand1 that the current salary scales do not reflect the coefficients of purchasing power parity in Table 6 attached to the AC decision CA/D 9/20. Furthermore, pensioners are excluded from a periodical settlement and a pay-out of a lump sum after a three-year period, in contradiction to Article 33(2)(c) EPC.

It should therefore not be surprising that many colleagues and pensioners are now taking legal action. The CSC understands from your letter that you intend to reject the requests for review and are already planning the next step of requesting a test-case procedure at the internal Appeals Committee.

The CSC has been open ever since for an agreement on its locus standi so as to

______
1 Employees looking up their basic salary in the table for Belgium (Table 1 attached to CA/D 9/20) and multiplying this value with the coefficient of purchasing power parity for their place of employment (Table 5) will observe a higher salary than on their salary slip (or in Tables 2 to 4).


have an efficient and functioning system for the settlement of disputes. Therefore, overloading the system should definitely be avoided.

You mention in your letter that the Office is willing to apply the final outcome of the legal proceedings regarding the new salary adjustment procedure “to all staff provided they are in the same situation, in fact and law”. The CSC regrets that the wording is even more restrictive than Article 13 of the Rules of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO allowing an intervention in a complaint if a requestor is “in a situation in fact and in law similar to that of the complainant”. (Emphasis was added to both quotes.) Furthermore, the CSC took note that you recently followed in your negative decision on the NCS for colleagues in the A4(2) grade an opinion of the Appeals Committee reading inter alia that “statements of the President … were not, however, considered to constitute an enforceable and substantive promise made”.

Finally, the CSC cannot see a category of employees or pensioners to whom the final outcome of the legal proceedings would not apply.

In view of the above, the CSC is currently reluctant to recommend to staff to identify test appellants. However, the CSC is interested in contributing to the good administration of justice. The CSC would therefore be willing to support a bona fide proposal to the AC leading to a decision that the result of the litigation on the salary adjustment procedure will be applied to all employees and former employees of the EPO as well as their successors in title.

The CSC would further appreciate if you could exempt the staff from the obligation to exhaust the internal means of appeal by authorising them to challenge a decision directly before the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO2.

Yours sincerely,

Alain Dumont
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

______
2 Such an approach permitted a swift access to court for the employees of the ILO, IOM, ITU, WHO and WIPO, who successfully challenged the adjustment of their salaries in 2018 and who received the Judgments Nos. 4134–4138 already one year later.

Whether speaking rationally to a kakistocracy that shamlessly lies to everyone is going to yield any results… well, that remains to be seen. But at least they make their case clear.

04.13.21

An Examination of Correspondence Between the Tweedledum-Tweedledee Duo, Lutz and Ernst

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: A quick look at the letters and E-mails sent back and forth from the current VP5 and former VP5 of the EPO, Europe’s second-largest institution that the German government has let exist outside the rule/reach of any law

THE troubling situation at the EPO is rarely covered by the media anymore. Rarely is it mentioned that the former President, Benoît Battistelli, is friends with the current one, António Campinos, and moreover he allegedly rigged the nomination and selection process in favour of his friend, in effect assuring ongoing cover-up and complete lack of oversight. Only recently we began exploring the relationship between Lutz and Ernst, which is equally disturbing and should trouble any German who thought that the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, based in Berlin, does what its title says.

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 16: An Inimitable Duo

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

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

BfDI Alice

Summary: How the efforts to reform the EPO‘s data protection framework were derailed by the actions of Lutz and Ernst

IN the last part we concluded our long and winding detour to examine the respective roles of Lutz and Ernst in EPO affairs over the last two decades.

Now it’s time to return to the main focus of the present series, namely: how the efforts of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner to push for a reform of the EPO’s data protection framework were derailed by the actions of this inimitable Tweedledum-Tweedledee duo.

“Dr Ernst proceeded to fire off a letter to the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs, headed by none other than former Federal Justice Ministry official, Raimund Lutz.”As we saw in an earlier part of the series, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Ms Andrea Voßhoff, sent a letter to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag in July 2015 in which she expressed her concerns about deficiencies in the EPO’s data protection framework, in particular the lack of independent supervisory oversight.

The Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag placed the matter on its agenda for a meeting scheduled to take place on 14 October 2015.
At the same time the Federal Government was invited to provide a statement of its position to the Legal Affairs Committee.

In accordance with standard procedures the matter was passed on to the competent government department, namely the Federal Ministry for Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) which is responsible for all matters relating to the EPO.

And so it came to pass that the file landed on the desk of a “Ministerialdirigent” by the name of Dr Christoph Ernst.

Dr Ernst proceeded to fire off a letter to the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs, headed by none other than former Federal Justice Ministry official, Raimund Lutz.

In his letter to Lutz dated 20 July 2015 [PDF], Ernst noted that Ms Voßhoff had addressed the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and had reiterated the demand for the establishment of an external data protection supervisory authority over the European Patent Office, referring to “the case of computer surveillance by means of keyloggers and video cameras recently mentioned in the press”.

Ernst then made a request for assistance from the EPO:

In preparation for the discussion in the Legal Committee [of the Bundestag], it would nevertheless be very helpful if the BMJV had a written statement from the European Patent Office at its disposal.

I would therefore ask you to comment on Ms Voßhoff’s letter of 9 July 2015. In particular, I would ask you to explain to me once again in detail the data protection standards applicable at the EPO, the cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor and the events in connection with the computer monitoring mentioned above, and their legal assessment under the law applicable to the EPO.

It took some time for Lutz to get back to Ernst but on 2 October 2015 he sent the EPO’s response to the BMJV. [PDF]

This response is full of the usual self-serving waffle and pious platitudes about how the EPO’s data protection framework is “closely aligned” with EU data protection regulations, for example:

The EPO is proud of its long history of data protection. We are one of the first international organisations to have actively pursued data protection, having enacted the first data protection guidelines back in 1992. This policy was revised in 2014 and adapted to current standards of data protection. It is based on generally accepted European legislation, first and foremost Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation 2001/45/EC, which contain all the elements of modern data protection, from the basic principles of data protection to the rights of an individual vis-à-vis the data-processing institution.

When addressing the allegations of unlawful covert surveillance by Battistelli‘s “Investigative Unit”, Lutz adopted a more defensive tone and declined to comment on the specifics:

As far as the specific case is concerned, I ask you to understand that the EPO cannot comment in this context on ongoing disciplinary proceedings of the Administrative Council, but I would like to point out that press articles based on an isolated letter do not provide a reliable basis for assessing our data protection.

The letter continues with further cant and humbug about the EPO’s “conscientious” approach to data protection and the same old phony assurance that “its rules meet European data protection standards”.

Lutz concludes by expressing his gratitude for the support given to the EPO by BMJV via “the letter from the State Secretary Ms Hubig to the Data Protection Commissioner of 7 November 2014″.

As might be expected, the correspondence between the “Ministerialdirigent” Dr Ernst and EPO Vice-President Lutz is worded in an official and formal style.

However, it is apparent from the much more personal tone of the cover e-mail of 20 July 2015 [PDF] which Ernst sent to Lutz that these two gentlemen were on very familiar terms with each other.

The text of this e-mail reads as follows (in translation):

Dear Raimund

Here is an advance copy of the announced communication per e-mail.

Cordial greetings

Christoph

Here we can see that Ernst addresses Lutz by his given name rather than using the more formal “Sehr geehrter Hr Lutz”. The e-mail concludes with “Herzliche Grüße” (“cordial greetings”) rather than with the more impersonal salutation – “Mit freundlichen Grüßen” – which is found in the official correspondence.

With his letter of 2 October 2015, Lutz provided Ernst with the material that he needed to prepare his submission for the Legal Affairs Committee in a manner that would neutralise the impending threat of parliamentary “interference” in EPO affairs.

In the next part we will explain how Ernst used “copypasta” magic to ward off the evil spirit of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner who was threatening to encroach upon the inviolability of Battistelli’s EPOnian fiefdom.

An Ode to Dr. Ernst

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 7:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

THE BUDGET is right
Not worth the fight
That hand that feeds thou shalt not bite
Out of mind, out of sight

Eyes on the trophy
More tea and coffee

Budget issues? Not my department!

Are you done yet…?

Sir, yes, sir!

EPO oversight?... would rather overlook

EPO oversight in check
From Maftónio comes the next cheque
The institution is a shipwreck
But at pension age he can abandon the deck

(Stay tuned for part 16 in the series…)

During Pandemic, With Rising Inflation, Corrupt EPO Management With Its ‘Shadow Budget’ Cracks Down on Education and Childcare Allowance

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 5:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Wage theft
Source: Wage theft (Wikipedia)

Summary: While hoarding and misusing money [1, 2, 3] (by basically granting lots of patents that ought not be granted) the management of the EPO hides it aside, then proceeds to crushing salaries and benefits of staff, even pensioners

“In this open letter to the President,” the Central Staff Committee of the EPO recently noted, “we request that the reform of the Education and Childcare Allowance be adjourned, until the present crisis is over and proper and fruitful negotiations can take place. However, we also request that a proposal to amend Article 71 ServRegs be submitted for statutory consultation and be put on the provisional agenda of the forthcoming BFC meeting (BFC/126) of May 2021 for decision, exclusively for the purpose of extending the education benefits for the post-secondary education to employees who are nationals of the country where they serve in the next school year 2021-2022.”

Archambeau and CampinosSomeone has passed us the letter below, dated the end of last week. It’s a letter to António Campinos, who lied to the Parliament yesterday. That’s what happens when politicians’ mouths or lips move; if only the EPO was run by scientists again — as was the case as recently as 1.5 decades ago — there would be basic adherence to facts and more compassion where possible.

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO

ISAR – R.1081

OPEN LETTER

Adjournment of the reform of the Education and Childcare Allowance and amendment of Article 71 ServRegs

Dear Mr President,

In view of the current pandemic situation, the immense level of stress it has imposed on our colleagues, and the subsequent impossibility to consult properly all involved stakeholders, the staff representation hereby requests to adjourn the reform of the Education and Childcare Allowance, until the present crisis is over and proper and fruitful negotiations can take place.

The staff representation also requests that a proposal to amend Article 71 ServRegs be submitted for statutory consultation and be put on the provisional agenda of the forthcoming BFC meeting (BFC/126) of May 2021 for decision, either of your own motion or in accordance with Article 9 (2.2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Council, exclusively for the purpose of extending the education benefits for the post-secondary education to employees who are nationals of the country where they serve in the next school year 2021-2022.

Yours sincerely,

Alain Dumont

Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

They assume “proper and fruitful negotiations can take place” some time in the future; remember that the “Orange One” (of EPO, not the White House) refuses to talk to the staff’s union, sometimes even to the Central Staff Committee. So much for dialogue and negotiations…

04.12.21

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 15: Different Strokes for Different Folks

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

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

Wolfgang Schmitt-Wellbrock and Cornelia Rudloff-Schäffer
Wolfgang Schmitt-Wellbrock (left) pictured in 2010 with an official of the Ministry for Traffic (centre) and the head of the German Patent & Trademark Office, Cornelia Rudloff-Schäffer (right).

Summary: Dr. Ernst and Raimund Lutz colluded to protect EPO management from a much-needed investigation; Ernst has since then been rewarded with a do-nothing job by António Campinos

Christoph Ernst’s disappointing track record in the area of EPO governance makes it tempting to speculate about how things might have turned out if someone with more integrity and backbone had headed the German delegation on the Administrative Council during the Battistelli era.

It should not be forgotten that in December 2010 it was by no means a given that Ernst would end up in this position.

EPO OJ 2011 EPO OJ Schmitt Wellbrock
The deputy representative and ad interim head of the German delegation in December 2010 was Dr Wolfgang Schmitt-Wellbrock.

At that time, Lutz had just stepped down due to his impending appointment as EPO Vice-President. The alternate or deputy head of delegation was another official of the Justice Ministry, Dr Wolfgang Schmitt-Wellbrock, who acted as the ad interim head of delegation until Ernst’s appointment in April 2011.

“The alternate or deputy head of delegation was another official of the Justice Ministry, Dr Wolfgang Schmitt-Wellbrock, who acted as the ad interim head of delegation until Ernst’s appointment in April 2011.”All other things being equal, Schmitt-Wellbrock might have been expected to move in to fill the gap left by Lutz in December 2010 and take over as head of the German delegation.

There is no information available to explain why this didn’t happen. So we are left to speculate as to why Ernst ended up as Lutz’s successor instead of Schmitt-Wellbrock.

It’s not clear what became of Schmitt-Wellbrock subsequently but as far as is known he is now in retirement.

What is interesting to note is that Schmitt-Wellbrock’s name turns up in German media reports from 2016. He was appointed by the Federal Justice Ministry to head an investigation into a covert surveillance scandal in the state of Thuringia (formerly part of the Soviet-controlled East German Democratic Republic).

The investigation was launched after it was revealed that Thuringian police had automatically intercepted and recorded tens of thousands of telephone communications since the late 1990s without the knowledge or consent of those being recorded.

Schmitt Wellbrock
Schmitt-Wellbrock presenting his report on a covert surveillance scandal involving police in the state of Thuringia in December 2016.

Schmitt-Wellbrock presented his report on the Thurinigian covert surveillance scandal in December 2016.

“As we will show in the coming parts, Ernst colluded in this regard with his mentor, EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz, the apparent purpose of their collusion being to derail efforts to push for a reform of the EPO’s data protection framework.”By an ironic twist of fate, a little over a year earlier in the autumn of 2015, Schmitt-Wellbrock’s colleague from the German Justice Ministry, Christoph Ernst, had been busy trying to organise the cover-up of a covert surveillance scandal in the European Patent Office in an attempt to neutralise the impending “threat” of a parliamentary inquiry by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag.

As we will show in the coming parts, Ernst colluded in this regard with his mentor, EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz, the apparent purpose of their collusion being to derail efforts to push for a reform of the EPO’s data protection framework.

EPO President Campinos Lying to JURI

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Benjamin Henrion recorded today's hearing and uploaded it. “Campinos,” according to him, claims that (to paraphrase) “London [is] irrelevant to get UPCA running” (that’s very obviously a lie), so what we have here is António Campinos lying on behalf of the entire EPO, just as Benoît Battistelli did. Campinos has decided to “have fun,” we’ve been told, speaking of UPCA “upper law” (which is meaningless junk) at around 51:00. He clearly didn’t come prepared and he mumbles a lot. What awful leadership for what was supposed to be the best of Europe’s science…

« 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