Funding Sources Like Corporate Sponsors/Patrons/Masters Put at Risk the Freedom of Free Software

Posted in Finance, Free/Libre Software, Office Suites at 4:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 2c1236a74235b8218f02ec9b0f94aaaf

Summary: Sources of funding or “sponsors” such as large corporations typically come with some barely-visible or temporarily-invisible strings attached (an expectation of commercial reciprocity, rendering the recipients subservient like ‘slaves’) and we need to understand how to preserve software freedom in the face of such trends

THE ethical condundrum surrounding Free software funding is hardly new. Richard Stallman spoke about it more than two decades ago (he suggested ways to get paid for writing freedom-respecting software) but corporate media likes to pretend Free software can only succeed if monopolies fund to control it. They don’t even speak about freedom; they prefer shallow nonsense such as “Open Source”.

Red Hat statement about Richard Stallman’s return to the Free Software Foundation boardThis video is part of an ongoing series or a theme that explores the loss of collective control by users and communities; by encouraging non-reciprocal licensing, CLAs etc. the monopolists seek to control everything. Remember what IBM did with Red Hat only months after IBM had taken over (and then again a year and a half later) because money comes with demands. They want something in return. Audacity comes to mind and earlier on we mentioned LibreOffice, which relates to the links below:

This subject is part of a much broader problem; sponsorship and funding are a matter of control (coercion, subjugation and so on). And if the goal is to empower users and give them true control over their lives (on the platform or on-line), then we need to understand and accordingly tackle the emergent threats.

“This subject is part of a much broader problem; sponsorship and funding are a matter of control (coercion, subjugation and so on).”As always, we welcome guest posts and other contributions from readers. There seems to be a passionate and eager ‘base’ that recognises these risks and has a bunch of stories to tell, based on rumours heard somewhere like Microsoft and/or the Linux Foundation. People who see these from the inside are sometimes horrified to learn what a bunch of charlatans and frauds work there. They want to control Linux users; but they aren’t even Linux users themselves.


Hardly Shocking and Not At All Surprising That Thugs Who Run the EPO Hired External Thugs to Help Them Oppress Aggrieved Staff

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 5:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: With the EPO’s management flooding the bank accounts of aggressive law firms (at our expense) we need to ask serious questions about how such a “Mafia” (what EPO staff calls the management) managed to metastasise inside Europe’s second-largest institution and how to remove this “Mafia” as soon as possible (some arrests too are well overdue)

THE staff of the EPO can certainly expect workplace atmosphere to deteriorate. In 2015 when Benoît Battistelli and his goons hired several aggressive law firms (notoriously so, according to my lawyer) in order to SLAPP and bully me it became apparent that the EPO’s management is a “Mafia” not only inwards but also outwards. It’s a lunatic institution that takes its toll on its own staff and costs Europe billions of Euros (the above video explains why it’s actually all of us in Europe who pay the price for this thieving, self-serving “Mafia”). Battistelli actually took longer than António Campinos to recruit a legion of lawyers, enlisting a platoon of de facto thugs to go after his perceived ‘enemies’.

“The reputation of Europe (and the EU) is at stake here, not just the European economy.”The video goes through this hours-old article that I decided would be worth remarking on (separately, so as not to distract or detract from the original message).

How many more lives need to be totally ruined before the “Mafia” is overthrown and maybe even held accountable (legally)? The reputation of Europe (and the EU) is at stake here, not just the European economy.

A Parade of ‘Yes Men’: EPO’s Budget and Finance Committee as Rubber-stamper of the Dictatorship That Pays the Salary

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 11:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2016: Budget and Finance Committee of the Administrative Council (EPO) Confirms Exile of the Boards of Appeal
2017: Battistelli’s Big Fat Greek Wedding at the EPO’s Budget and Finance Committee

Yes man
Reference: Yes man

Summary: The lack of oversight at the EPO has long been apparent and it is becoming ever more problematic now that huge sums of money are passed by the EPO’s management to law firms whose sole role is to fight against aggrieved EPO staff

THE EPOnian regime flexes its muscles again. It’s not resembling in any shape or form a democracy!

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO published and circulated two documents, one in German and one in German-English (mixed in the text, as part of that text is a transcript). Those documents don’t show anything surprising, unpredictable or shocking, at least not to EPO insiders. It’s more of the same tail-wagging-the-dog, wherein the Office dictator (like Benoît Battistelli, like son, António Campinos) tells his so-called ‘bosses’ to say “yes” to every proposal. In the process the dictator would occasionally distribute national “gifts” (bribes) at the expense of the Office coffers, which are based partly/largely on an improper granting process/guidelines (they’ve long departed from the EPC, which was supposed to govern the EPO). Systemic corruption or worse? Surely the European public is paying for it. It’s paying for it big time (billions of Euros in external costs). As predicted before, the ‘bosses’ would blindly approve more budget to be weaponised against the staff’s budget (Office lawyers against staff’s, potentially draining out their meager savings). Office management will waste almost 6,000,000 Euros just suing their own staff or fighting them (with external lawyers). We wrote about it last month. As MinceR from Hungary put it some minutes ago (in IRC), “too bad those will come out of our pockets…”

But “they have their own budget,” I explained because the EPO is ‘self-funding’. We just pay with settlements when trolls sue” (or products become more expensive because of the patent troll), “which also comes out of our pockets,” as MinceR notes.

“Office management will waste almost 6,000,000 Euros just suing their own staff or fighting them (with external lawyers).”“Report on the 126th BFC [Budget and Finance Committee] meeting” was produced at the end of last week and further disseminated today, noting some of the key findings upfront. “Conducting meetings of the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) by videoconference has further shortened the already rarely controversial debate of the delegates of the Contracting States in this committee,” they complained. “Thus, despite a full agenda, the 126th meeting, originally scheduled for two days, was already over after six hours.” The text in the publication is similar to this, but they give an outline of the outcome/s as follows:

The most important points for staff were:

  • The Education and childcare benefits reform (CA/7/21): some delegations commented that the reform was still too generous or slightly criticised the long transition periods, or the intended equality of treatment for nationals and non-nationals. All the delegations (except DE and CH) cast a positive vote for the reform, so that the Administrative Council now has a pro forma unanimous positive opinion by the BFC. We assume that the Administrative Council will approve the reform at its upcoming meeting in June
  • Reports on the Reserve Funds for Pensions and Social Security (RFPSS) / review of the 2020 financial year: the results are excellent!
  • Award of contract for outsourcing of ILOAT services (CA/F 11/21): the EPO had a total of EUR 5.85 million (!) approved to obtain external legal advice against staff complaints before the ILOAT. This enormous sum is in stark contradiction to the President’s propagated intention to change the EPO from a culture of litigation into a culture of dialogue.

This regime is just a plastic surgery or an operation on the previous one, boosted by corrupt and bribed-for media coverage. We wrote about it many times before. They’ve managed to convince themselves that communication alone, not substance, was the real problem. They’re still totally rigging the courts (e.g. decisions on European software patents), but instead of kidnapping judges they control them by intimidation; the very fact they’ve already been sent to leased space in Haar is somewhat of a warning shot. Stacking the panels for particular outcomes is the cherry on the cake!

Anyway, without further ado, here’s the full publication (raw and unedited):

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 11.06.2021
sc21079cp – 0.2.1/3.1

Report from the 126th meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee on 26 May 2021

Since 2020, all Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) meetings have been held by video conference due to the pandemic. This format has further shortened the already rarely controversial debates of the delegates of the Contracting States in this committee. Thus, despite a full agenda, the 126th meeting, originally scheduled for two days, was already over after six hours including three breaks. The most important points are briefly presented below.

Education and childcare benefits reform (CA/7/21)

The most sensitive item on the agenda from the staff’s point of view was the reform of the education and childcare benefits. First, VP 4 described the old system as unbalanced, outdated, cumbersome to administer, difficult regarding digitalisation, and having limited financial predictability. She then focused on the alleged intensive involvement of staff and social partners in finding a solution. In presenting the reform, she spoke of additional costs for young children, a decrease in costs for school fees and high transition costs, but overall a balanced system in the long term.

The staff representatives pointed out the unequal treatment of the different locations in the reform and emphasised that the reform did not achieve fairness across the salary groups. A constructive counter-proposal from the CSC was not put on the agenda because the President refused to consent to it.

Several delegations commented that the reform was still too generous or slightly criticised the long transition periods. CH and DE criticised in particular the intended equality of treatment for nationals and non-nationals. Compared to the EU, the allowances were too high in their view. These two delegations abstained but all the others cast a positive vote for the reform, so that the Administrative Council now has a pro forma unanimous positive opinion by the BFC.

Reports on the Reserve Funds for Pensions and Social Security (RFPSS)

The fund manager presented a very positive performance of the RFPSS. A performance of 4.3% was achieved in the difficult year 2020. This was 1.3 percentage points above the strategic benchmark. Furthermore, the RFPSS continued to outperform the benchmark on an annualised basis over 5, 10 and 20 years. The market value of the reserve funds was EUR 10.98 billion at the reporting date.

Comments from delegations were correspondingly positive. The staff representatives congratulated the entire fund management team on the excellent result. They referred to the current rising interest rates, which in addition to the outperformance of the RFPSS also mean a significant decrease in pension liabilities.

Award of contracts, inter alia for outsourcing of ILOAT services

In addition to the undisputed contract awards for cleaning services in The Hague, for maintenance of technical installations in Munich and for health insurance administration, for the first time an award of contract related to outsourcing of ILOAT services (CA/F 11/21) was on the agenda for approval, which is cause for concern. The EPO had a total of EUR 5.85 million (!) approved for 36 months to obtain external legal advice against staff complaints before the ILOAT.

The staff representatives criticised this enormous sum, which by far exceeds the expenditure of previous years. In particular, it is in stark contradiction to the President’s propagated intention to change the EPO from a culture of litigation into a culture of dialogue. Furthermore, the staff representatives pointed out that the EPO has significantly more posts for lawyers in the Directorate Employment Law than in the Conflict Resolution Unit.

Only IT and PL raised critical questions about the exceptionally high post for external legal advice. VP 4 countered the criticism by claiming that it was only a framework contract that provided for a maximum amount of money. Furthermore, she flatly disputed the figures presented by the staff representatives – figures taken from the Office’s own reports.1 2 Finally, the BFC approved all contract awards without dissenting votes.

Review of the 2020 financial year

The financial situation of the Office is regularly presented to the BFC from three perspectives. Firstly, the operating and capital income is compared to the operating and capital expenditure and compared to the usually conservative budget. Here the result is an annual surplus of EUR 348.9 million, which is 44% above the budgeted figure. A remarkable result, especially considering that the budget was set before the pandemic.

The annual accounts are then presented in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Since its introduction, the Staff Committee has regularly criticised this approach as unsuitable for the EPO (most recently here). Because of the strong dependence on the current discount rate, the results show great volatilities. A decrease in the interest rate by 0.1 percentage points would mean an increase in defined-benefit obligations by EUR 770.7 million, i.e. more than twice the annual surplus. The IFRS results therefore say more about the assumptions made for interest rates than about the actual financial situation of the EPO. By way of example, according to IFRS, the Office achieved a negative total result of EUR –6.8 billion in 2019 – compared to a positive total result of EUR 752 million in 2020.

Finally, a so-called standardised operating result is presented, which allows comparison over the years by assuming a standardised discount rate of 5%. According to this approach, the result is a positive EUR 259.2 million for 2020.

In its intervention, the staff representatives picked up on some of the comments in the Board of Auditors’ report on the 2020 accounting period (CA/20/21 and CA/20/21 Corr.1). The staff representatives again criticised the IFRS accounting. Finally, they highlighted that the estimates of the financial study and the Base 2 Scenario chosen were far from the actual financial situation at the end of 2020.

1 CA/27/21, page 6: Compared to the year Mr Campinos took office, not only have more internal complaints been filed in the last two years. The number of complaints before the VGIAO has also increased.
2 Organigrams of the Directorate Employment Law and of the Conflict Resolution Unit: There are twenty posts for lawyers in the Directorate Employment Law, and only two in the Conflict Resolution Unit.

Outlook for 2022

At the end of the spring meeting of the BFC, the initial budgetary orientations for the following year are presented regularly. The management expects 173600 patent applications and 114000 published patents for 2022. Compared to this year’s budget, these are changes of +3.4% and –3.4%, respectively. However, the EPO also assumes a disproportionate decrease of 4.0% in the number of filled posts in the examination area. It was announced to the BFC that there will be no new recruitments in 2021 or 2022, except in very exceptional cases.


The virtual meetings of the Budget and Finance Committee are in notable contrast to the earlier on-site meetings. The debates are much shorter, but some presentations are longer. After the unanimous vote of the BFC, we have to assume that the Administrative Council will approve the reform of the education and childcare benefits at its upcoming meeting. The performance of the reserve funds is excellent.

Your Central Staff Committee

Annex: Interventions by the Staff Representation (manuscripts)

On the education and childcare benefits reform

The EPO presented its plans for a reform of the Education and Childcare allowance which shall increase the fairness between national and non-national staff, provide additional (including financial) advantages, and which should be aligned with the goals of SP2023.

A closer look at these plans unfortunately reveals the opposite.

Goal 1 of SP2023 aims at ‘a working environment that will attract and welcome the brightest minds in Europe, develop their talents, encourage professional development, foster knowledge transfer and collaboration, and offer them first-class working conditions/environment’.

This goal contributes to the EPO’s success as a knowledge-based organisation, which is much appreciated by staff.

However, we must point out that the Office’s plans regarding the education and childcare allowance do not meet the said Goal 1 of SP2023 to develop and attract talent. On the contrary – the planned reform counteracts the intent to foster internal job mobility and to attract external talent.

With this planned reform, a number of problems would be created whereas the financial benefits remained small compared to the implicit costs, the negative psychosocial impact and more social unrest which would add to the current already bad atmosphere at the EPO.

Just to name a few of these problems:
• First: Instead of the allegedly improved fairness between national and non-national staff, we anticipate unequal treatment of staff at the different EPO sites: While many staff in Munich would benefit from this reform due to the favourable local conditions, the other 3 EPO sites would suffer – partly considerable – financial disadvantages.
• With that, the reform as proposed would, secondly, add to the imbalance between the EPO sites to the benefit of the headquarters in Munich. This clearly undermines the concept of the EPO as a European institution with sites in different European countries.
• Third: the current proposal for the reform would hamper job mobility of staff between the different EPO sites, decreasing the ability of the Office to adapt to new situations. What’s more, the reform would definitely not benefit the desired collaborative spirit between the different sites.
• Fourth: We expect the reform to have a particularly strong negative impact on EPO staff in lower job groups and grades. These are disproportionally often women, many of them with children, who frequently work on a part-time basis. The reform would counteract the Office’s attempt to improve the career prospects especially for women and to become an inclusive organisation. By trying to avoid an unbalanced treatment of nationals and non-nationals, the EPO would create a system that discriminates as to Office site, income and gender.

All these negative effects were already addressed by staff representatives in meetings with the Office. In addition, a detailed counterproposal was presented by the Central Staff Committee offering a sound compromise between the needs of EPO staff at all sites and the needs of the Office to overcome the shortcomings of the current system.

Unfortunately, the Office largely adhered to its initial proposal and claims that the current proposal for the reform is already to be considered a compromise. On the contrary, the counterproposal of the Staff Representation was once more largely ignored.

We firmly believe that Social Dialogue is more than just counting the number of meetings with stakeholders in the Office. Social Dialogue is about listening to the other side and looking into their arguments seriously. Only with that, the consultation process in the Office can live up to the expectations of a real Social Dialogue.

We encourage the BFC delegates to form their own opinion in this matter and also consider the counterproposal as presented by the Central Staff Committee.

In fact, a sound reform of the education and childcare allowance will help to meet the Office’s goals and also contribute to the wellbeing of staff and their families, independent of site, gender and salary. What has to be avoided, however, is to create considerable disadvantages for the Office and its staff while the advantages are limited and largely of a financial nature only!

On the award of contracts, inter alia for outsourcing of ILOAT services

5.850.000 Euro, das ist die enorme Summe, die der Amtspräsident sich heute für externe Rechtsanwälte bewilligen lassen will. 5.850.000 Euro stehen dann zur Verfügung – allein für Streitfälle mit den eigenen Bediensteten und allein für solche, die vor dem Verwaltungsgericht der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation in Genf ausgetragen werden. 5.850.000 Euro, das ist ein Betrag, der die Ausgaben der vergangenen Jahre um ein Vielfaches übersteigt. In der langen Geschichte des Amtes ist es heute das erste Mal, daß der Posten für externe Rechtsberatung für VGIAO-Fälle genehmigungspflichtig ist und Ihnen hier im Haushalts- und Finanzausschuß vorgelegt werden muß. Der Amtspräsident ist angetreten, um eine Streitkultur durch eine Kultur des Dialogs zu ersetzen. Diese Intention findet allerdings keinen Niederschlag in den Zahlen. Im Vergleich zum Jahr des Amtsantritts von Herrn Campinos sind in den letzten beiden Jahren nicht nur mehr interne Beschwerden eingereicht worden. Die Zahl der Klagen vor dem VGIAO hat auch zugenommen. Mit dem heutigen Schritt wird diese Initiative des Amtspräsidenten gänzlich ad absurdum geführt. Als das vorliegende Dokument vor zwei Wochen veröffentlicht wurde, klingelten die Telefone bei der Personalvertretung. Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen waren darüber bestürzt, daß bei den Ausgaben für die Schul- und Betreuungskosten ihrer Kinder gekürzt werden soll, aber Unmengen an Geld für externe Rechtsanwälte zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollen.

In der Direktion Dienstrecht gibt es ohnehin schon 20 Posten für Juristinnen und Juristen, die sich mit individuellen und kollektiven Rechtsangelegenheiten beschäftigen. 5.850.000 Euro sollen nun zusätzlich für Rechtsangelegenheiten vor dem VGIAO eingeplant werden. Wissen Sie, meine Damen und Herren, wie viele Juristinnen und Juristen in der Conflict Resolution Unit beschäftigt sind, die mit der Streitschlichtung beauftragt ist? Laut Organigramm lediglich zwei. Und gibt es hier ein Extrabudget, das Ihnen vorgelegt wird? Nein.

Wenn Sie die 5.850.000 Euro für Rechtsstreitigkeiten heute bewilligen, ist dies aus unserer Sicht ein falsches Signal ans Personal. Selbst wenn es sich bei diesem Betrag nur um eine Obergrenze handelt, wie das Amt sicher gleich betonen wird, so ist doch diese Obergrenze ein verheerendes Zeichen. Ein Zeichen dafür, daß das Amt selbst die Streitkultur gegenüber der Kultur des Dialogs bevorzugt. In allen Gesprächen, die die Personalvertretung mit der Amtsleitung führt, bieten wir inzwischen zu strittigen Themen Kompromißlösungen an. Leider bevorzugt die Amtsleitung, den eigenen Weg durchzudrücken und später die Sache vor Gericht zu klären. Nicht den Weg des Kompromisses, sondern den Weg des Streits unterstützen Sie, wenn Sie nun 5.850.000 Euro für externe Rechtsanwälte bewilligen.

On the review of the 2020 financial year

An den präsentierten Berichten haben wir wenig auszusetzen. Auch wenn, wie im Bericht geschildert: „die meisten Empfehlungen (der Rechnungsprüfer) aus den Vorjahren noch nicht vollständig umgesetzt sind“, scheinen wir auf einem guten Weg zu sein. Fragen zu einzelnen Punkten müssen nicht hier, sondern können hoffentlich in kleinem Kreis diskutiert werden.

Wir weisen insbesondere auf die Bemerkung der Rechnungsprüfer hin, dass sie der Bilanzierungsmethode des Amts für Verpflichtungen in Bezug auf Leistungen nach Beendigung des Arbeitsverhältnisses … zustimmen, verweisen jedoch auf das damit verbundene hohe Maß an Schätzungen. Insgesamt sind wir der Meinung, dass IFRS für die Beurteilung der finanziellen Situation des Amtes nur sehr bedingt geeignet ist.

Aufgefallen im Bericht der Rechnungsprüfer ist uns die Erwähnung, dass im April eine zusätzliche Taskforce „Neue Normalität“ eingesetzt wurde. Die Personalvertretung wurde in diesem Stadium nicht beteiligt, was bedauerlich ist.

Wir möchten Sie daran erinnern, dass in 2019 eine Finanzstudie erstellt und präsentiert wurde. Aufgrund dieser Studie wurden 5 Maßnahmen beschlossen. Weder die Kinder- und Erziehungszulage noch die angekündigte Reform des Pensionssystems waren dabei. Dennoch haben wir den Eindruck, dass es bei den Reformen nur um Einsparungen geht.

Eine der 5 Maßnahmen war die Gehaltsanpassungsmethode, die, wie sich gezeigt hat, die Gehälter nicht einmal ausreichend erhöht, um die Inflation auszugleichen. Für das kommende Jahr ist bereits eine Erhöhung um 0 % angekündigt, während die Inflation in Deutschland mittlerweile eine der höchsten, wenn nicht die höchste in Europa ist.

Zur Qualität der Finanzstudie möchte ich beispielhaft nur eine Zahl hervorheben. Im vom Management gewählten Base 2 Scenario wurde der Bestand des RFPSS Ende 2020 mit 6,8 Milliarden Euro prognostiziert. Tatsächlich sind es 10,3 Milliarden Euro.

Auf der anderen Seite: Am vergangenen Freitag endete in Deutschland eine Frist, in der Betriebsärzte Impfstoff bestellen konnten, um von Anfang an bei den nun zusätzlich erlaubten Impfungen dabei zu sein. Das EPA hat nicht bestellt, da, soweit mir berichtet wurde, die Zustimmung des Präsidenten gefehlt hat. Auf der anderen Seite werden 5,85 Millionen Euro für Rechtsanwälte beantragt.

Der Präsident ist angetreten, den sozialen Frieden wiederherzustellen. So funktioniert das nicht. Entschuldigung, aber Fürsorgepflicht umfasst mehr als die Sorge ums Geld.

Maybe we’ll do a video about this some time later this week. A lot of the above is absolutely outrageous.


EPO Management Pours Money Down the River, Wasting Budget on Failed and Failing Projects

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 3:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Objects of Propaganda
The ‘suits’ at the EPO have no clue whatsoever (they’re not hired for their skills)

Summary: EPO managers have no idea how to run a patent office (or any office for that matter); in the process they dismantle systems and processes that generally work

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO wrote about “IT matters” earlier this month. “In this document,” they told to staff, “we explain that reality gives the lie to lofty principles when ‘prudence’ is invoked to justify cuts in some IT areas whereas generous and risky decisions are taken in other areas.”

“Prudence requires more than just realising short-term gains in some performance indicators without taking the total costs and the long-term development of the Organisation sufficiently into account,” they said.

“In a nutshell, the EPO wastes money on many bad things, based on a complete misunderstanding of technology and the needs/goals of the Office.”The document was prepared about a week ago but circulated today, quoting the real Bonaparte, not his cheap imitation, and berating Professor António ‘Hey Hi’ Campinos, the algorithms specialist and computing expert who sent the EPO to Microsoft in the United States (instead of keeping systems that the Office can actually control). Misguided or deeply corrupt (e.g. kickbacks)?

We’ve decided to reproduce the whole document in HTML form. Watch what the management of the EPO has done, as published by the CSC:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, .1 June 2021

‘It is only by prudence, wisdom, and dexterity, that great ends are attained, and obstacles overcome. Without these qualities nothing succeeds.’

Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

Prudence: When the gap between claim and reality is wide

Who could have any objection to ‘prudent’ management and decision-making? But reality gives the lie to lofty principles when ‘prudence’ is invoked to justify cuts in some areas whereas generous and risky decisions are taken in other areas.


Prudence is a big word. And no doubt, skills and good judgment in the use of resources as well as circumspection with respect to danger and risks is a virtue. Accordingly, it does not come as a surprise that the concept of prudence has been claimed by the powerful since centuries to justify their actions and to present them in a favourable light, irrespective of the nature of these actions.

Hardly surprising, the prudence concept found its way into management speech. At the EPO, this concept has been used for many years to justify and substantiate decisions which have a significant negative impact on staff and to make these decisions look as if there were no alternatives. In many cases, however, these decisions are highly questionable in terms of a sustainable functioning of the Office.

Use of the prudence concept during the Coronavirus pandemic

The Coronavirus pandemic is no exemption to this. Already shortly after the pandemic started, management took far-reaching measures regarding workforce planning (see e.g. the report of the April 2020 MAC meeting) by introducing a recruitment freeze1. Following this policy, the number of persons employed was

1 CA/10/21, page 36

far below initial budget at the end of last year2. This decrease in workforce can have a massive negative impact on the workload of EPO staff and the quality of the work at the Office in the medium term.

Described as part of a ‘prudent approach’, these measures were largely justified by an expected steep drop in the number of filings by 10 per cent due to a likely ‘major economic disruption caused by the Coronavirus outbreak’3. This assumption was substantiated, by way of analogy reasoning, with the decline in the number of filings during the global financial crisis in 2008/2009.

This line of argumentation was questioned by staff representation, since the global financial crisis was of a quite different nature than the economic crisis caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. As is predicted by many experts, the pandemic will trigger a technology and innovation push to fight the pandemic and to shape the period following the pandemic, which is expected to show up positively in the number of filings.

With that, it can hardly surprise that the current filing numbers4 are by about 20% above the predictions based on the said pessimistic management scenario.

High time therefore to reconsider the far-reaching measures of management regarding workforce planning?

Not according to management: ‘So far, no significant overall decrease in incoming workload or increased active withdrawals of patent applications could be observed, although some sectors are more impacted. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the future evolution of the global economy and in particular the risk of a significant slowdown when the liquidity support measures will be phased out, the Office continue to follow a cautious approach and chose a workload scenario which still takes into account the possibility of a drop in incoming search workload in year 2021 by some 10% compared to budget 2020, followed by a gradual recovery over time starting already in 2022.’ (CA/25/21, page 2).

In the end, it boils down to this: Predictions were made by Management based on courageous analogies. They justified wide-ranging cuts in budget and workforce, which were promoted as part of a prudent approach. And as reality does not support the argument, reference is made to an indeterminate future when the prediction may eventually still come true.

In science and engineering, it is good practice to reject hypotheses that cannot be falsified. As an organisation that builds on the outcome of science and engineering, the EPO should apply similar principles and abstain from tempting but suspect

2 ibidem
3 CA/50/20, page 5
4 EPO applications Q1 2021

management actions which rely on a one-sided interpretation of the current situation.

Prudence: Between ideal and reality

Unfortunately, this is not the only biased use of the prudence concept.

Example iPads

Let’s have a look at document CA/F 6/21 which gives an overview of ‘award decisions pursuant to Article 58(3) of the FINREGS’. While management does not tire of propagating the said prudent approach when it comes to budget and workforce, it takes initiatives in other areas with courage and stunning generosity. In Annex 2.3 of the CA document, management reports on the purchase of 4500 iPads, accessories and related services, amounting to up to EUR 15 million until 2025 and more than EUR 3,000 per tablet unit.

This special treat for staff in DG1 and the Boards of Appeal, which is explained by management as ‘another step towards a fully digital Patent Grant Process’, is not only in striking contrast with the prudent approach as to budget and workforce.

Example mainframe decommissioning

But also contrary to other decisions in the IT sector at the EPO which are claimed to cut costs and to render the operating processes more efficient. Although often described as ‘legacy’ by management, the mainframe continues to be the backbone for data and operating processes which are mission-critical for the EPO and other offices.

The mainframe remains a thorn in the side of management due its maintenance costs – which are too high, they argue. For this reason, a first attempt was made to migrate the data and operating processes from the mainframe to another hardware platform using a so-called lift & shift process, which left the underlying processes largely untouched. This attempt met with reservations from IT experts from the very beginning. And what happened proved them right: this attempt was a failure.

In a second attempt, management decided to apply an emulator solution to make the migration from the mainframe happen. Again, it’s not a modernisation of the processes but essentially a change in the hardware platform. And, in view of the failure of the first attempt and the strong desire of management to decommission the mainframe, this second attempt takes place under high time pressure.

What remains is a hollow aftertaste. While the said core data and operating processes were kept stable over many years in the mainframe environment, it is

unclear whether the said mission-critical business activities will continue to work in the new environment without a hitch, in particular in the light of the high time pressure for the second attempt. It appears to be a high-risk strategy without a safety net: No return to the current mainframe-based solution is foreseen when the second attempt would fail, too.

Is the mainframe decommissioning, as implemented so far, reflecting a prudent approach? Probably not, as an activity triggered by a strong management desire, despite the technological obstacles and organisational hiccups.

Does it at least help the Office to save substantial resources? Probably neither. According to CA/F 6/21, the hardware, software and services for the mainframe infrastructure cost several million euros per year (page 10). No doubt, this is more than a small amount of money.

But it is an investment in the very core of the EPO’s data and operating processes. And it must not serve as a sacrifice for the management’s savings policy when the same managers are prepared to spend even more money on tablets with little restraint.

Example framework contracts

Let’s take another example. On page 5 of document CA/F 6/21, management explains that IT operational services have to follow the framework contracts approach, based on the following argument: ‘The focus was on avoiding interdependent smaller contracts with too much management overhead, thereby reducing the associated coordination and communication challenges. At the same time there is a wish to leverage more flexibility to easily and quickly evolve the contractual basis for the service provision to keep up with and deliver the transformations associated with SP2023.’

The costs for this framework contracts approach may amount to up to approximately EUR 75 million until 2025.

Comparing the new framework contracts approach and the previous situation with a diversity of service contractors, different aspects strike right away:

• The new approach involves the risk that the (partly decade-long) expertise and experience of the previous service providers are lost because proper know-how transfer to the new service providers is hardly possible. This is all the more true in view of the complexity of the EPO’s data and operating processes.

• The costs and benefits of the new approach are not fully taken into account: Management sets the focus on the apparent benefits (mainly reduction of

administration overhead and higher flexibility to the benefit of the Office). What is not taken sufficiently into account is the imminent loss of know-how (see above), indirect excess labour costs due to extra burden for EPO staff to organise know-how transfer, and indirect costs due to an expected decline in the quality of deliverables/final products in the medium term.

• In the past, the evaluation of bids of service providers for specific activities was largely based on technical expertise of EPO specialists. The situation is clearly different for the new approach: due to its general nature as a framework contract, technical expertise and technical aspects only played a secondary role during the evaluation of the bids whereas apparent administrative and cost advantages became much more important.

• With the new approach, orders for IT service activities may be passed on to sub-contractors. With that, deliverables/final products may show the ‘handwriting’ of several service providers, which creates at least two problems on the part of the EPO:

a. Know-how transfer to sub-contractors to which activities are passed on is difficult or nearly impossible. In any case, it will require extra efforts on the part of EPO experts to make sure that deliverables/final products can at least rather meet the EPO’s quality standards in this situation.

b. With the different ‘handwriting’ of contributors, it will be challenging for the EPO to make sure that the deliverables/ final products can be maintained at limited expense and will live up to the EPO’s expectations.

As for the previous example, approaches to cut costs and to improve the management of the EPO’s IT activities that look tempting at first sight can easily turn into its opposite.


Prudence requires more than just realising short-term gains in some performance indicators without taking the total costs and the long-term development of the Organisation sufficiently into account.

In fact, prudence is a valuable concept indeed when it is taken seriously and is not used as a fig leaf to justify short-sighted decisions whose adverse effect on the EPO and its staff may show in the medium term at the latest.

In a nutshell, the EPO wastes money on many bad things, based on a complete misunderstanding of technology and the needs/goals of the Office. As some readers may recall, very "big money" was blown away on failed "IT" projects in the past. Almost quarter of a billion euros on just one such project. Nobody was held responsible for it.


On Cash and Monero, Another March 2021 Talk by Richard Stallman

Posted in Finance, Free/Libre Software at 1:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: A talk given by Richard Stallman is now online; it was delivered on March 11th, 2021

Duration: 1 hour 12 minutes

License: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0)


The Clown Song

Posted in Deception, Finance, Microsoft at 5:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ponzi-Nadella: We're doing great because we say so!

Summary: Ponzi puts his Nadella mask on; the biggest scam since Enron and the 2008 financial crisis?

THE Ponzi scheme afoot
Shareholders we loot
The system we reboot
To tell the truth is moot

Everything is clown
Clown computing is the game in town
The finances may be down
Let’s rebrand before we drown

LinkedIn we reframe
Layoffs and write-offs are a shame
To Nokia we once came
And the outcome was the same

Office is the clown
Windows is the clown
Don’t you mope and frown
Even when Teams are down

Azure has layoffs, sure
Losses we ensure
Clown is the future, hear us roar!
Even when in reality it’s cannibalisation and gore


Richard Stallman: We Need to Restore Democracy

Posted in Finance at 11:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Dr. Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation’s founder, explains how plutocrats control society

Direct download as Ogg (00:05:02, 16.8 MB)


Richard Stallman: We Need to Increase the Minimum Wage in the US

Posted in Finance, Free/Libre Software, Interview at 5:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Direct download as Ogg (00:05:20, 17.8 MB)

Summary: Dr. Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation’s founder, speaks about corporations versus benefits, among other related issues


(intro music)

Roy: We’ve spoken about poverty in general, it’s been shown recently that a thing the United States has dropped a great deal in terms of the levels of the child poverty in the Western world. I think it’s second worst now.

RMS: Well, that’s not surprising because you have Republicans doing everything key can to attack


anything that benefits most Americans and you have Democrats rather weak in defending those programs so they’ve been reduced and reduced and reduced. You get a Democratic president who said that he wanted to make budget cutting and deficit cutting a goal. That’s the wrong goal when you’re having a recession. What you need to get out of a recession is deficit spending. That’s what Keynes told us. So, they’re ignoring this. Why? Well, we


can guess it’s because the plutocrats want them to ignore this.

Roy: Would you say that the minimum wage is the main point to concentrate on?

RMS: I don’t know if it’s the main point because it’s one of many important things. Yes, we need to increase the minimum wage in the US. That’s not all we need to do. We need to do a lot of things.

Roy: I think there’s been a great deal recently in the media especially where they speak about how unemployment rates have gone down but they don’t really want to show you which companies were hiring and the fact they were


hiring temporary employees and part-time employees and that’s another issue which robs people from the rights to certain benefits of full-time employment.

RMS: Yes, in the US health benefits and some others are, including retirement income, these have been connected by a mistake in judgement with employment. However, employers don’t have to pay into these things for somebody


who’s working less than half-time. So that gives employers an incentive to hire only less than half-time workers and then people don’t get these things. Now, the solution, in regard to health care is disconnect it entirely from employment. It is a mistake, and likewise for support for the old, it shouldn’t be connected with employment at all. Because if it is connected with employment, that is economic pressure on companies not to employ workers in your country.


They would rather employ people elsewhere or use machines. They would rather spend a lot of money to automate rather than pay people. So it’s an undesirable incentive that this law places on employers. If we simply taxed businesses based on their revenue and used the money to provide health care and income for the old and everything else that is important to do for


people, then these companies wouldn’t have any incentive not to get their work done by hiring people. No, don’t stop it because I want to say a bit more. First of all, when I go into a supermarket or any other store that has self-checkout machines, I urge people not to use them because by using those machines they are increasing unemployment. I don’t use them myself, unless they basically give


me no other choice at all. And I tell the people who work in the store, I’m refusing to use those because I want you to continue to have jobs. You can do this too. We can all do this. We can make it a movement. Second, I learned a few days ago about the role played by offshoring, by complcated chains of ownership running through countries where


the real owners of a company can be secret so it seems that this is something that we need to put a stop to. But why don’t we? Plutocracy, of course. The governments that continue to allow this to be done are obeying the rich that they don’t dare disobey.

Roy: Because they fund them.

RMS: Exactly. So, you need politicians who are courageous enough to


say we are not going to play beggar thy neighbor any more. We’ve going to kick the banksters out of London unless they bow down to a state that isn’t plutocratic. And if they say obey us or we’ll leave, we’ll tell them good-riddance because trying to attract marauders like that in the hope of a little trickle-down


is in the long term a self-defeating policy which anyone can see by looking at it with the long perspective.

« 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




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts