01.30.23

EPO Management Isn’t Listening to Staff, It’s Just Trying to Divide and Demoralise the Staff Instead

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 32dd63c46bdd4b787727bd9782632766
EPO Divide-and-Rule
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: “On 18 January 2023,” the staff representatives tell European Patent Office (EPO) colleagues, “the staff representation met with the administration in a Working Group on the project “Bringing Teams Together”. It was the first meeting since the departure of PD General Administration and the radical changes made to the project. We voiced the major concerns of staff, the organization chaos and unrest caused by the project among teams and made concrete proposals.”

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) at Europe’s largest patent office — the EPOis again protesting the proposal put forth by António Campinos and his cronies. Remember that these cronies aren’t democratically elected; they’re in need of impressing nobody; they literally buy (bribe for) votes from the Council. It’s an oppressive force of corporate occupation, not leadership by any stretch of imagination. They openly promote utterly illegal and unconstitutional proposals. They refuse to obey orders from judges.

“Where’s the media in all this? Still ignoring what’s happening in Europe’s second-largest organisation?”Edda Franz, the EPO’s Principal Director General Administration, has left already, but this terrible proposal she’s responsible for goes ahead. This was covered here towards the end of last year.

Here’s the latest publication on the subject, noting that unrest and chaos soon followed:

Munich,26/01/2023
sc23010cp

“Bringing Teams Together”

Report on the Working Group meeting of
18 January 2023

On 18 January 2023, the staff representation met with the administration in a Working Group on the project “Bringing Teams Together”. It was the first meeting since the departure of PD General Administration and the radical changes made to the project. We voiced major concerns of staff, the organisation chaos and unrest caused by the project among teams and made concrete proposals.

Dear Colleagues,

Compressing staff in less space than available

The administration announced in the meeting that:
− in The Hague, DG1 staff will be entirely moved to the New Main and the Shell building will be gradually emptied.
− in the Isar building, three floors have been emptied and will be used by three directorates of DG1.
− the Pschorr Höfe Parts 5 and 6 will be emptied for conversion work in order to increase the number of single offices (e.g. dividing current shared or meeting rooms in several smaller rooms). Staff will be moved to the lower floors 1 to 5 of Pschorr Höfe Parts 1-4. Higher floors will remain empty in order to compress staff as much as possible so that a global move back to Pschorr Höfe Parts 5 and 6 in two years will allow the administration to make another use of Pschorr Höfe Parts 1-4 (most likely renting out).

Radical changes and chaotic implementation

In the meeting, we referred to the CSC publication of 12 January 2023 pointing at the radical changes made to the project since December without consulting staff representation. Line managers are asked to proceed on the basis of quotas (70% of workplaces per directorate among which 50% can be allocated fixed) thereby triggering divisive discussions among staff. The implementation is chaotic and arbitrary with a broad range of diverging implementations on top of “managerial arbitrariness”. Here a non-exhaustive list:

• Some line managers decide to allocate only workplaces-for-the-day to everyone.
• Some line managers explain that only those agreeing to a shared office (e.g. two workplaces in the same room) could have an allocated fixed workplace.
• Some line managers allocate fixed workplaces only to those coming 5 days a week on the premises.
• Some line managers allocate a fixed workplace only to “high producers”.


We repeated that such implementations contradict the principle of individual workplace allocation promised by Mr Campinos, as well as the statement of Ms Simon (VP4) in the December Administrative Council meeting that “anyone coming at least three days per week will have an allocated fixed workplace”. Furthermore, a purely quota-based distribution of workplaces and allocated fixed workplaces cannot match the wishes of staff.

We stressed that staff are additionally worried that even allocated fixed workplaces must not be personalised, that they will have no keys and will furthermore only have limited storage space.

Impact study? Disengagement?

The administration confirmed that neither an impact study nor any proper needs assessment had been made before launching the project. In their view, the goal is to avoid a “ghost town” feeling because of low building occupancy when coming to the premises. Concerning the timing, the administration explained that it is not possible to wait forever before doing something nor to wait for the implementation to be agreed by all DGs. The guiding principle is to allocate fixed workplaces to people who come more often and bookable workplaces-for-the-day for those who come less frequently.

In our view, such a project requires an impact study to assess the effects on staff. How much working time will be lost for the moves (and in the prior divisive discussions)? How long will staff take to adapt to the system? How much time will be lost in resetting every day the individual ergonomics, computer and screen settings and locking all personal items when leaving the room?

It is easy to see that staff willing to come three days a week will resort to the minimum attendance of 60 days to avoid the hassle of workplace booking and the readjustment of ergonomics. Rather than “Bringing Teams Together”, the project will achieve the opposite, i.e. deter staff from coming to theOffice premises.

The latest Technologia Survey results already show a significant degradation of staff engagement. Disengagement of EPO staff increased from 13% of staff in 2016, and 19% in 2020, to 41% in 2022. An employer who tries to allocate impersonal workplaces-for-the-day even to those coming frequently to the Office premises (three days or more per week), is an employer showing staff that they do not count. The present project therefore is expected to only worsen the situation.

Concrete proposals

In the meeting, the administration asked whether we had any concrete proposal. We explained that:

− staff needs clear rules e.g. a three-day rule for having an allocated fixed workplace, as previously promised by Ms Simon (VP4),
− allocated fixed workplaces must have a key and storage space and personalisation should be allowed.

The administration promised follow-up meetings but no invitation was yet received. We remain ready for further discussions.

The Central Staff Committee

Where’s the media in all this? Still ignoring what’s happening in Europe’s second-largest organisation?

01.27.23

[Meme] António Campinos Wants to Be F***ing President Until 2028

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ruling by force (and corruption), not consent

António Campinos

Summary: António Campinos insists he will be EPO President for 10 years, i.e. even longer than Benoît Battistelli (despite having appalling approval rates from staff)

António Campinos demo

Who ‘voted’ for him? Only people whom he bribed.

European Patent Office Staff Losing Hope

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 503e18c16f942729aa694e85c07cb717
EPO Deteriorates Every Year, So Does Its Propaganda
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The EPO’s management with its shallow campaign of obfuscation (pretending to protect children or some other nonsense) is not fooling patent examiners, who have grown tired and whose representatives say “the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate” (like in Sirius ‘Open Source’ where technical staff is ignored completely for misguided proposals to pass in the dark)

The Central Staff Committee, or the staff representation at the European Patent Office, is unequivocally unhappy about António‘s reign, which turns 5 in July. Benoît Battistelli in 2014 or 2015 was starting to struggle to the point of attacking the staff representatives. Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).

“Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).”Here in this site we worry about European software patents being granted to fake 'production'. But we also worry about patent examiners being bullied into doing stuff in violation of the EPC.

At the moment there is the following new document circulating among staff of the EPO, asserting that “almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions”. Here’s the full letter, which is also discussed in the video above:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 23/01/2023
sc23007cp

Social Agenda 2023

Hope dies last

Dear Colleagues,

In December 2022, the CSC sent its input for the social agenda 2023 to the President, who replied shortly before the winter break. As in previous years, the administration set its social agenda without any real discussion with any social partner. It has to be said though that some of the points that we mentioned in our letter did make it into the administration’s agenda. We had also suggested a review of the computation of sick leave and an impact study of the New Ways of Working, but these were not included in the agenda.

As in previous years, we are not yet aware of the gist of any of the new reforms or reviews listed in the official social agenda 2023. In theory, it should be possible that these reforms are neutral towards staff, one could even dream of improvements. Since the administration has integrated some of our points in its agenda, one can only hope that this would be a first step towards a genuine social dialogue. It would be a marked break with past practice and a welcome surprise for staff, which is increasingly distancing and disengaging from its employer.

Past experience indicates otherwise: almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions, often at the expense of our younger colleagues and families1.

The social agenda 2023 mentions a financial study as a recurring topic. We can only hope that this one will not be attributed to Mercer-Wyman, the very same ones who could not have been more wrong with their 2019 attempt, even despite an unforeseeable global pandemic that ensued. Once again, the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate.

The first indications for 2023 are, regrettably again, not so positive: “Bringing Teams Together” does not live up to its name at all, but proves to be a particularly divisive exercise as more and more details come to light.

We will of course keep you posted if and when we are invited to working groups and get to see the ideas the administration will pull out of their magic hat. Against all odds, the hope for the better remains until the end.

The Central Staff Committee
_____
1
Welcome to EPOnia – an overview of our recent reforms

The video above takes a journey through the latest EPO propaganda (warning: epo.org link), which was published almost every day this past week. The quality of the propaganda has rapidly fallen.

As for the agenda, as noted above, this is what’s planned for the rest of the year:

SOCIAL AGENDA 2023

ONGOING FROM 2022

1 NPS/SSP Study
2 Update circular 356 – Communication and Resources for Staff Representatives
3 Staff Committee Election Framework
4 Health Services Adjustments
5 Diversity & Inclusion

NEW TOPICS

6 Home Loans
7 Dependant’s Allowance
8 Review of the regulations regarding on-call work
9 Review of the benefits in case of physical (cross-site) transfers

RECURRING TOPICS

10 Actuarial Study
11 Financial Study

REGULAR UPDATES ON IMPLEMENTATION

12. Implementation Matters
▪ ECR
▪ New Ways of Working
▪ Bringing our Teams Together

Here’s what the original looks like (as an image with colours).

SOCIAL AGENDA 2023

csc and epo site 2023

Video download link | md5sum
EPO Deteriorates Every Year, So Does Its Propaganda
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The EPO’s management with its shallow campaign of obfuscation (pretending to protect children or some other nonsense) is not fooling patent examines, who have grown tired and whose representatives say “the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate” (like in Sirius ‘Open Source’ where technical staff is ignored completely for misguided proposals to pass in the dark)

The Central Staff Committee, or the staff representation at the European Patent Office, is unequivocally unhappy about António‘s reign, which turns 5 in July. Benoît Battistelli in 2014 or 2015 was starting to struggle to the point of attacking the staff representatives. Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).

“Campinos shouted the f* word at staff representatives last year, so maybe he’s even “ahead of the curve” (so much for social/negotiation skills).”Here in this site we worry about European software patents being granted to fake 'production'. But we also worry about patent examiners being bullied into doing stuff in violation of the EPC.

At the moment there is the following new document circulating among staff of the EPO, asserting that “almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions”. Here’s the full letter, which is also discussed in the video above:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 23/01/2023
sc23007cp

Social Agenda 2023

Hope dies last

Dear Colleagues,

In December 2022, the CSC sent its input for the social agenda 2023 to the President, who replied shortly before the winter break. As in previous years, the administration set its social agenda without any real discussion with any social partner. It has to be said though that some of the points that we mentioned in our letter did make it into the administration’s agenda. We had also suggested a review of the computation of sick leave and an impact study of the New Ways of Working, but these were not included in the agenda.

As in previous years, we are not yet aware of the gist of any of the new reforms or reviews listed in the official social agenda 2023. In theory, it should be possible that these reforms are neutral towards staff, one could even dream of improvements. Since the administration has integrated some of our points in its agenda, one can only hope that this would be a first step towards a genuine social dialogue. It would be a marked break with past practice and a welcome surprise for staff, which is increasingly distancing and disengaging from its employer.

Past experience indicates otherwise: almost every review in recent years resulted in fragmentation and deterioration of our working conditions, often at the expense of our younger colleagues and families1.

The social agenda 2023 mentions a financial study as a recurring topic. We can only hope that this one will not be attributed to Mercer-Wyman, the very same ones who could not have been more wrong with their 2019 attempt, even despite an unforeseeable global pandemic that ensued. Once again, the administration shows no intention of involving the staff representation in the drafting of the consultant’s mandate.

The first indications for 2023 are, regrettably again, not so positive: “Bringing Teams Together” does not live up to its name at all, but proves to be a particularly divisive exercise as more and more details come to light.

We will of course keep you posted if and when we are invited to working groups and get to see the ideas the administration will pull out of their magic hat. Against all odds, the hope for the better remains until the end.

The Central Staff Committee
_____
1
Welcome to EPOnia – an overview of our recent reforms

The video above takes a journey through the latest EPO propaganda (warning: epo.org link), which was published almost every day this past week. The quality of the propaganda has rapidly fallen.

As for the agenda, as noted above, this is what’s planned for the rest of the year:

SOCIAL AGENDA 2023

ONGOING FROM 2022

1 NPS/SSP Study
2 Update circular 356 – Communication and Resources for Staff Representatives
3 Staff Committee Election Framework
4 Health Services Adjustments
5 Diversity & Inclusion

NEW TOPICS

6 Home Loans
7 Dependant’s Allowance
8 Review of the regulations regarding on-call work
9 Review of the benefits in case of physical (cross-site) transfers

RECURRING TOPICS

10 Actuarial Study
11 Financial Study

REGULAR UPDATES ON IMPLEMENTATION

12. Implementation Matters
▪ ECR
▪ New Ways of Working
▪ Bringing our Teams Together

Here’s what the original looks like (as an image with colours).

SOCIAL AGENDA 2023

01.23.23

Sirius Lying About ISO to Justify Giving the Technical Staff Some Classic ‘Bullshit Jobs’ While Censoring/Covering Up Incompetence

Posted in Deception, ISO, Patents at 7:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ISO perception; ISO reality

Summary: Sirius ‘Open Source’ has long used “ISO” — and sometimes “GDPR” — as catch-all excuses for all sorts of nonsensical policies; does ISO realise the degree to which it is being misused by incompetent 'box tickers'?

“The ISO will basically standardize anything they’re paid to even if it’s impossible for anyone else to implement the standard, for any reason,” Ryan said in IRC yesterday. “They’re a corrupt group that will do anything for money.”

“Here’s one example from Sirius: Nothing to do with ISO, yet “ISO” gets mentioned all the time — the go-to excuse for everything.”To make matters worse, ISO facilitated epic Microsoft corruption. ISO still enables crime. It didn’t seem to mind it or worry about it. It only worried about the impact on its image/reputation. The EPO‘s management also habitually uses “ISO” to distract from the EPO’s crimes. We covered several examples several years ago. “The ISO hoards “standards” and won’t let you read them for free,” Ryan said moments ago. “So on top of patents, things only Microsoft can implement, etc. There’s this. Unless you tore apart LAME’s source code and tried to write new documentation for MP3, you can’t share high level documents with anyone. I doubt that the paywall is a huge cash cow for them. You still can’t share the official MP3 specification. The source code to LAME or Helix are the specification you can see without ponying up almost $300 iirc for a specification that describes it at a high level. By looking at source code, you can’t clearly understand every part of it unambiguously unless you’re a Mentat or something. The developers of LAME buy the PDFs but how much revenue is five people buying PDFs? Or maybe a dozen people even?”

Here’s one example from Sirius: Nothing to do with ISO, yet “ISO” gets mentioned all the time — the go-to excuse for everything. Any terrible policy…. such as classic “bullshit jobs” (making lists of tickets aside from the ticketing system, for no actual purpose other than to keep us extra busy).

Skip to the bold bits for the ‘short’ story or the gist:

Ticket Review – This is priority and compulsory

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: Re: Ticket Review – This is priority and compulsory
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 12:45:09 +0100
From: xxxxx

xxxx,

Support is contracted to work 8 hours. This time should be used productively for the company’s requirements and business needs. And right now business needs this report from every shift to update the clients. We are also going through quality control for ISO purposes [Ed: emphasis ours]. This makes it even more important.

This is how your shift should really go:

1. Start shift
2. Read Handover
3. Respond to any emails
4. Ticket review
5. As and when new tickets are added to xxxx – enter these onto the relevant ticket review reports on the fileserver for each customer – whilst doing the ticket review, update if status has changed to either open – ongoing OR closed.6. Work on tickets/check monitoring etc for rest of your shift
7. Write detailed handover and send
8. Finish shift

It is not an unreasonable requirement from management.

If you have anymore issues email me directly or xxxx and do not cc anyone else as I don’t want a long email thread which is going to take focus away from objective.

Kind Regards,

xxxx

> xxxx wrote:
>
> I’m sorry you don’t want my input, but I think this is a very important point that needs making. The trouble is that I can’t see how this is going to improve the amount of tickets that we have open at the moment. What is needed is for each of us to actually work on the tickets.
>
> On 31-05-2019 11:35, xxxxx wrote:
>
>> Hi xxxx,
>> The status box requires open/ ongoing or closed. It doesn’t require details.
>> Please read my email again and follow instructions.
>> This is compulsory and required from each of you.
>> This really is not open for discussion.
>
> [...]
>
>> <xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I understand. But it would be helpful for me if you would would
>> clarify what exactly is required by a Ticket Review. For me,
>> there’s no point writing largely irrelevant or obvious comments
>> at the bottom of each ticket. What is needed is to actually work
>> on each ticket and resolve it so it can be closed.

Well, that stopped getting done when they decommissioned our last server. So that clearly had nothing to do with “ISO”. The management lied to us and misused the “ISO” straw man.

Does ISO deserve to know this?

Another unqualified “manager” did the same with “GDPR”. To provide some context (2020 E-mails):

> Hi Roy,
>
> Why was this handover sent at 1:03 am – your shift is meant to be
> finished at 1:30 am.
>
> What is the reason for this?

Again, I think this is a misunderstanding. Check the past 8 years’ worth
of handovers at 1-1:30am. Look at the time pattern.

Did you send a similar message to all my NOC colleagues as well?

Regards,

She didn’t ‘get’ the message. I did nothing wrong at all. We all did the same thing even close to a decade earlier. She wrote:

Hi Roy,

Why did you leave your shift at 1:14 am (Tuesday 3rd March 2020)?
Your shift is meant to be until 1:30 am.
There was no prearranged time change request with management or request to leave 15 mins early in writing from you in our records.

I am concerned with this issue. Would you kindly clarify?

I responded again:

> Hi Roy,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> I raised these questions yesterday as I noticed that you said bye on
> your slack convo at 1:14 am (I have sent you a screen shot in previous
> email) that made me investigate further and I came across your handover
> times. Hence all these questions.
>
> We would request you to complete your full shift as prescribed and not
> leave early in future.

My handover times are not different from my colleagues’.

Can you explain further please?

Regards,

I responded yet again:

> Hi Roy,
>
> Why did you leave your shift at 1:14 am (Tuesday 3rd March 2020)?
> Your shift is meant to be until 1:30 am.
> There was no prearranged time change request with management or request
> to leave 15 mins early in writing from you in our records.
>
> I am concerned with this issue. Would you kindly clarify?

This is a very surprising message.

For the 9+ years I’ve been in the company we all (always) handed over at
1 to 1:30am, often leaving before 1:30. The above is not at all out of
the ordinary. For any of us…

Regards,

At this point, bearing in mind the previous year’s bullying by her, I kept a copy of the message as a reference (HR, hired by Sirius, advised me to keep copies of key correspondence due to perceived witch-hunts).

To quote the Office Manager on “GDPR” (message redacted a little):

Hi Roy,

When on the 3rd shift (17:30 – 01:30) your shift finishes at 01:30 not beforehand.

xxxx simply requested that you comply with your correct working hours as we could see on slack and your time tracker that you have not been working up until the end of your shift. This isn’t an unreasonable request and doesn’t need to be questioned, its quite simple, finish your shift on time.

I understand the handover being sent over between 01:00 – 01:30 as that allows the colleague next on shift the opportunity to read the handover and discuss anything with you.

On another note, if you can please keep these emails within the company – I can see you have responded/cc’d from your personal email. With GDPR being very important, I do not want any of our client/Sirius data being available on your personal email so its essential to keep work-related correspondence to work emails.

I hope this clears everything up for you.

Kind Regards,

xxxx

I also said:

>> Hi Roy,
>>
>> Thanks for your email.
>>
>> I raised these questions yesterday as I noticed that you said bye on
>> your slack convo at 1:14 am (I have sent you a screen shot in previous
>> email) that made me investigate further and I came across your handover
>> times. Hence all these questions.
>>
>> We would request you to complete your full shift as prescribed and not
>> leave early in future.
>
> My handover times are not different from my colleagues’.
>
> Can you explain further please?

I have received no reply for a day.

I am used to that.

This is not the first time I get unwarranted bollocking and it’s the
kind of thing that can drive away experienced and crucial colleagues
over time.

What I did wasn’t wrong; it doesn’t hurt to get an apology for trying to
shame me in front of the CEO for something I did which was not wrong.

Kind regards,

Of course she never bothered to apologise. She just vanished. Her sidekick had to audacity to say that slang like “bollocking” was rude, ignoring how rude the bullying was and instead focusing on style and choice of words (that British slang isn’t even rude, unlike “bullocks”). It should be noted that the bullying did not start and stop in 2019; it carried on well into 2020. The above example is one of several.

“Sirius has a culture of extreme secrecy, even for insiders.”In summary, what we deal with here is two people bullying staff. They’re not qualified for any management role, but they seem to enjoy the ‘thrill’ of pretending that they are. It would become a more persistent problem as new imposters would attempt to cover up the company’s gross understaffing, e.g. a person without knowledge and ill-equipped or unequipped on the beat, pretending to cover a NOC shift or offer a service (that’s the CEO).

The company was lying to clients.

Remember that this is a company where there’s no chance at progression except through nepotism (like family/kinship and sex). At the moment it’s very hard to know what happens in the company, but that’s hardly different from how it was before, as a cabal was working behind the scenes and behind our backs, scheming to do all sorts of illegal things while lying to us (about who left, who was becoming a client and so on)

Sirius has a culture of extreme secrecy, even for insiders. Someone needs to show the ‘dirty laundry’.

In closing, to quote Ryan again (as other than Microsoft’s OOXML crimes there’s the MPEG cartel ISO controversy): “The ISO is still impeding LAME because someday they’ll lose all of the people who understand the code and then someone will have to fix it up to continue working. I’d argue that you almost can’t have standards with ISO. You have to publish them without ISO into the public domain to truly call them standards. People should get these Public Domain documents and decide whether it’s a standard themselves or not, like ZIP or Opus. You’ll notice they didn’t go to the ISO with Opus. They went to the IETF. The IETF standard, you can read. You can read every draft copy too so you know how it changed along the way if you care to. The ISO won’t give you drafts of a standard even if you pay so there’s no seeing how the process evolved. The ISO is probably even nasty in ways that I can’t fathom. But the ones that I know of are bad enough. FhG was not happy about LAME, I can tell you that much. Not happy at all. Even though it made MP3 hugely popular. They don’t acknowledge it even once on their Web site, even their little “MP3 History” museum, which I don’t even think mentions music piracy either. So that’s kind of like “Wikipedia-izing the History of MP3″. We’ll just gloss over Napster and LAME. Wasn’t important. Not gonna go how the format would have failed completely. We marketed it brilliantly and it was a hit out of the ballpark based on secret documents and patents, and ISO. Secret documents, patents, and ISO are in the way of progress, constantly, and the secret documents and ISO can be cut out of the process a lot easier than reforming the patent system.”

How about “ISO” being leveraged to lie to staff?

01.17.23

[Meme] Thanks to the German Government, the EPO is Immune/Protected From Prosecution (Persistent Law-breaking in the Name of ‘Upholding’ Patent Law)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not even bothering to obey court rulings!

EPO and courts

Summary: Germany has created a monster — an institution which is above the law and is routinely breaking the law

Patent Practitioners Complain That the EPO is Secretive and Incompetent

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum faf403c43a4d2099f7022b001fbe8287
What EPO Says and What the Public Says
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Showing the latest in epo.org/suepo.org (EPO/staff union), we consider what’s factual and what’s fictional in Europe’s patent system

THE past month was littered with lies about the EPO [1, 2, 3], courtesy of the EPO’s management and the German government. They don’t seem to care what’s legal and what’s constitutional. They make up the rules as they go along and rapidly drift away from the EPC (the treaty signed by member states).

“Maybe that’s just the cost of abject lack of oversight.”The EPO is the very rogue and very large institution the media almost never speaks about. For a change, as the union notes, there’s some pushback going on. It focuses not on legality though. It’s about private, for-profit companies worrying that the EPO is losing its reputation and is descending into a crisis of legitimacy. Maybe that’s just the cost of abject lack of oversight. The video above elaborates.

[Meme] A Kinder, Gentler EPO Leadership

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

To borrow the words of António Campinos:

I am the f***ing president

Summary: The EPO discriminates against women [1, 2], but still finds the audacity to publish the following words this week

EPC at 50 with overlay

EPC at 50

EPC and diversity

01.16.23

[Meme] Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht): Can’t See, Won’t Hear, Don’t Speak

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 5:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO complaints and Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

Summary: The EPO is protected by the German government [1, 2] no matter what it does; even the “elite” courts won’t intervene

« 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