Summary: Pressure from the political systems, the scientific community and from the media is growing, as it becomes abundantly apparent that the EPO cannot go on like this
THE European Patent Office (EPO) has already come under scrutiny from many politicians, but they are unable to do much because of the EPO’s insanely-granted (in retrospect highly irrational) immunity/impunity. Could EPO management get away with robbery, rape and murder as well? Hard to tell unless or until this happens… after 5 suicides the EPO’s management continues to deny authorities access to EPO sites (in order to properly investigate this). For all we know, EPO management can cover anything up, defame the accuser/s, and insist that it is the victim of a “campaign of defamation”. Watch in disgust and recall its appalling response to Bavarian TV coverage about one of the suicides.
Philip Cordery, a French politician who is sympathetic towards EPO staff, has just written in his blog again. To quote the French: “J’ai interrogé ce mercredi 30 novembre, lors de la traditionnelle séance de questions au gouvernement, le secrétaire d’Etat chargé de l’industrie, Christophe Sirugue, sur la situation sociale à l’Office européen des brevets.”
“Could EPO management get away with robbery, rape and murder as well?”We hope that a French-speaking reader can provide us with a reliable translation. Well, perhaps SUEPO will supply translations at some stage, but it doesn’t always happen. More French officials now speak out against the EPO’s management, including Richard Yung, who is also no beginner to this controversy. To quote Yung’s blog post: “M. Richard Yung attire l’attention de M. le ministre de l’économie et des finances sur la dégradation du climat social au sein de l’Office européen des brevets (OEB).”
This one too we could use a complete translation of. Accuracy is important as we strive to maintain a good record and poor translations have betrayed us at least once in the past.
Petra Kramer, our Dutch EPO ‘expert’ (she cares about the EPO’s situation although she does not have any connections to it), translated this new NOS article (like BBC of the Netherlands) for us. Here is a complete translation:
Van Dam: social situation European Patent Office should be better
State Secretary Van Dam wants the European Patent Office (EPO) to take concrete steps to improve the social situation. In a letter to the Lower House, he writes that a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) contains concrete leads to achieve this.
The agency has offices in several cities in Europe, including in Rijswijk. At the institute there are long-lived concerns about the working conditions and the social situation. Staff Office in Rijswijk’s took to the streets to protest several times, even last week. Even the House and the Cabinet have expressed their concerns.
Lack of trust
The EPO has called for the study partly at the insistence of the government. PWC states, several important reforms which have already been implemented, which are successful in part. Named for example, are a sharp drop in sick leave and the introduction of part-time jobs and working from home.
But the researchers are also critical about several issues. They questioned the reforms in the areas of participation and the implementation of the right to strike. They signal an “us-versus-them culture and lack of mutual trust between management and staff.”
Finger on sore spot
According to Van Dam the report puts the finger on the sore spot. The State Secretary is more concerned about the lack of internal trust and will continue to address that issue with the President of the Office.
At the EPO union members have repeatedly been fired, even recently. Van Dam writes that he can not speak about that last particular case, but he believes it is “not a healthy breeding ground for the restoration of social relations.”
Recently, the results of the PWC study were presented to 350 people involved in the EPO. Van Dam states it’s telling that the largest trade union was not invited to that meeting.
“The news is in the last sentence,” Petra Kramer noted. “SUEPO [was] not involved in PWC-study of EPO.”
“Diplomatical approach is certainly not bad,” told us an EPO insider, “however in this case totally useless. Van Dam is a way too subservient!”
Thankfully, the British press (Britain’s leading site in the area of technology) is covering the EPO scandals these days. This is the second time this week (the first one being about the UPC). Kieren McCarthy used the same game of words that we had used, revolving around the word “conCERN”. Here is the latest from McCarthy about Battisetlli’s McCarthyism and the response to it:
CERN concern: Particle boffins join backlash against Euro Patent Office’s King Battistelli
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, better known as CERN, has joined the list of organizations and media outlets calling for action against the president of the European Patent Office (EPO).
In its weekly staff bulletin, the particle physicists’ take issue with Benoit Battistelli for targeting and firing staff. “Over the past three years this organization has been under the rule of a president who imposes productivity targets which hinders the quality of the work done by the intellectual property specialists,” the bulletin notes.
It then accuses him of “degrading” the EPO with behavior “worthy of the 19th century” and endangering both the EPO itself and the European economy.
CERN is not the only organization to use such strong language. The European Public Service Union (EPSU), which represents more than eight million workers in Europe, has written [PDF] to a number of leading French, Dutch and German politicians this week asking them to “re-establish the rule of law” at the EPO citing “continuous threats to union representatives” by Battistelli, and violation of workers’ rights.
If things continue to be this bad, it’s not clear if there is any future at all for the EPO. Some believe that this plays into the hands of UPC proponents, perhaps connected to an attempt to make the EPO a more EU-connected institution, a bit like EUIPO. And speaking of EUIPO, watch the EPO sucking up to it this week [1, 2]; we remind readers that some EPO insiders believe these two institutions will one day be merged. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: A sobering reality check regarding the UPC, no matter what Lucy Neville-Rolfe says under pressure from Battistelli and some selfish law firms that are based in London
“Tomorrow on 11/29,” (that’s today), the USPTO wrote, “EPO shares information on new practices and procedures at #USPTOMidwest.” What practices and procedures are these? Bribery? Union-busting? Corruption? All the above? The EPO has become a den of corruption, bullying, thuggery, lies, bribery and so much more. It’s far, FAR worse than FIFA ever was. But somehow there is no shakeup, at least not in the media. In fact, the media (as we noted in parts one and two of this series) was filled with EPO-leaning propaganda this week. It’s utterly appalling, though not entirely unexpected or unusual. Battistelli wastes a lot of money manipulating the media.
“Finally,” one person joked, “the #UPC is coming into farce!”
Not into force but a farce, as many people out there still don’t believe the EPO and Team UPC, who are liars that use self-fulfilling prophecy strategies. They are far from their objective considering the legal challenges and petitions that are likely on their way. Besides, if Brexit is happening, there are also doubts about what happens to UPC when it happens. As one person said it: “V. revealing that meaningless phrases (cake & eat it) trump imp. Brexit news (UK to ratify UPC). No-one cares about detail. Soft Brexit.”
Brexit for the poor, not for the rich (patent lawyers who grease up our officials).
“So, I am not entirely convinced our UPC participation will survive Brexit,” wrote another person, “despite today’s signal to ratify.”
How much did they lobby Lucy and others to ‘buy’ the UPC proposition and how is that even lawful? Is Lucy just trying to pull a publicity stunt here, in spite of the realisation that it simply boils down to a farce?
Alex Robinson said: “According to “informed circles in London” the UK WILL ratify UPC Agreeement. Huge if true. Confirmation expected later…”
But that’s just what Robinson wants to believe, based on a mere statement from Mathieu Klos who got the story early and wrote “+++Eilt+++ UK beendet Hängepartie + verkündet heute in Brüssel “its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement” http://juve.de/?p=284122″
Combine that with the misleading headline from Bristows and all we have here is an echo chamber accompanied by Lucy, who may be making promises she cannot even fulfill.
Dr. Birgit Clark, linking to the article in German from Mathieu Klos, added that “if this is true, then the UK will today announce “its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement”” (but that alone does not mean it will be possible).
“I think today’s announce brings clarity for Europe wrt #UPC launch,” wrote one person, “but things remain woefully unclear for the #UK after #BREXIT”
Moreover, the UPC cannot be launched once citizens are either better informed or informed enough to realise that they’re being screwed (like with TPP) and thus become angry.
Did British officials get bought by Team UPC or just greased up? Did they even check if their promise is fulfillable? It probably isn’t. The UPC would be the final blow to the EPO’s staff and Battistelli allegedly plans to head the UPC after he burns down the EPO, symbolically pretending to respect the EPC by throwing the boards somewhere at a congested Haar-based office space (more on that another day).
Let’s make sure these people don’t get their way and that the UPC collapses just like its predecessors (the same thing happened with so-called ‘trade’ deals whose texts got reused and expanded over time, only to be rejected when the public found out and responded with fury). “May accepts Supremacy of EU law on patents, UK betrayal of Brexit,” Henrion wrote. “UK wants to ratify UPC, which is not consistent with Brexit,” he wrote on a separate occasion. Well, the UPC is an attack on British democracy itself. May is just surrendering to lawyers who greased up Lucy at al with Battistelli’s help. Set up a petition, I told him, inform the public about this case of the EPO bringing its massive abuses to the UK too and he said “it is a question for the Parliament, and let’s wake up our companies against this monster.”
The Unitary Patent is rejected by SMEs, who are often misrepresented by and misinformed by Team UPC. Writing to a mouthpiece of Team UPC, Henrion suggests they “remember how many companies have signed statements against swpats in the UK?” Selective memory serves them better. They organised pro-UPC lobbying events (we wrote about this during summertime).
“Let’s call for a referendum on UPC ratification by the UK. Any UK citizen can start a petition,” he said. We are currently working on it. Beside this he said semi-jokingly, “what a shame. Let’s ask for a referendum in the UK as well?”
As another person who later weighed in put it: “How can the UK justify handing control of their patent system over to an EU organization after Brexit?”
“So the UK lose all advantages of being part of the EU and leave themselves susceptible to Patent Trolls,” this person added, “not smart.”
Well, the real British industry (not some parasitic law firms) would suffer a lot if UPC ever became a reality. We just need to explain this to them and convince them to work hard to combat the UPC. Remember that patent trolls are best at extracting money out of small businesses, without even having to take them to court for a trial (because it’s potentially very expensive).
The patent “trolls are opening a bottle of champagne today,” Henrion noted, having said something similar before (“Patent trolls are opening a bottle of champagne now”). So do their prospective lawyers, who intend to raid Europe with low-quality patents and maximalise the patent tax everywhere in one fell swoop. Many high-profile figures have already explained very clearly why the UPC would good for patent trolls.
“My first thoughts too,” an EPO insider wrote about our guesses. “My guess is that Baroness Neville-Rolfe is the culprit here or isn’t she?”
We’re expected to believe that Brexit would be good for Britain “because the EU not a democracy” (or something along those lines), but things like the IP Bill and these empty UPC promises serve to remind us that the UK is far from a democracy. I met our Prime Minister many years ago and spoke to her in length; she is clueless about technology and although (probably) well-meaning, she does enormous damage by caving in and appeasing patent law firms. Lucy is equally clueless in these domains of science and technology and one EPO insider chose to say, “Battistelli and “La” Baroness Neville-Rolfe inseparable. Love at first sight!”
Neither of them has a clue!
They actually did publicly pose together for photos — the rare occasion where political people from a large European countries agree to be seen with Battistelli (he’s considered “bad neighborhood” now).
As we said before, we welcome and even need leaks. We want to know what preceded this very surprising if not bizarre announcement.
“Notes to editors,” it emphasised. “The UPC itself is not an EU institution, it is an international patent court. Includes UK judges…”
They should say “would” in the the announcement, but they want people to assume that the UPC is inevitable, which it is not. Someone truly got bamboozled here and we believe we know the culprits. It’s an easy guess, but proof/evidence is required. Following the money here, there is clearly some deeper agenda at play. Photo ops with Battistelli are just a symptom here and one must recall how he buys his way. Only says ago the EPO bragged about (warning:
epo.org link) Monaco, which has just 4 EPO patents, playing along with him. This is possibly a case of Battistelli ‘buying’ votes, but it’s hard to know for sure (he sure earned some publicity owing to a ‘country’ (small city) with just 4 patents). Why would Battistelli and his PR people at Twitter brag about another tiny country (with a vote equal to that of the UK) that he pocketed so cheaply? They’re making the monkey business ever more shallow and easy to spot. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Bigwigs like Lucy Neville-Rolfe and Benoît Battistelli, together with Team UPC and its tiny minority interests (self enrichment), are conspiring to hijack the laws of Europe, doing so across many national borders with unique and locally-steered patent policy in one fell swoop
I have personally done a lot to help EPO staff in the face of serious abuses against them. Now that Europeans (citizens and businesses) are under threat from the UPC we hope that EPO staff will help crush the UPC and restore the old order of things, prior to Battistelli’s ruinous arrival. Technically speaking, the UPC is not revived; it’s still hanging there by Battistelli’s side, next to his grave that he keeps digging. Europe will probably need to get rid of both. They already made false predictions about the UPC in the past and here they go again. “I doubt whether it is legal or not,” one EPO insider wrote. “Future Investigations will confirm this.”
“There is no legal basis at the time to ratify the UPC treaty,” this person added.
“There is no legal basis at the time to ratify the UPC treaty.”
–EPO insiderManaging IP didn’t take too kindly this remark from Benjamin Henrion who wrote: “Unitary Patent needs to die, it is an undemocratic court system controlled by the patent mafia, not parliaments…”
He responded to this early prediction/rumour which said: “Former MP & Europe minister predicts UK will pull out of #UPC & #UnitaryPatent in announcement tomorrow https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/802805432528019456 …”
That’s what should have happened, but it didn’t. Maybe infighting over this? We need leaks about what these politicians did and why.
The term “patent mafia” just led to a joke, not a serious response: “If only there were, like, a handshake or something”
“Unitary Patent needs to die, it is an undemocratic court system controlled by the patent mafia, not parliaments…”
–Benjamin Henrion (FFII)Responding to Managing IP, the anonymous EPO person wrote: “To not be able to identify them, one must be
a) totally unfamiliar with UPC, EPO or the like
Or d) nepotism-driven/corrupt.
The matter of fact is, the term “patent mafia” is more or less equivalent to what we habitually call “Team UPC”. They’re like a collusion of patent firms, together with large clients and the EPO, scheming to change the law in their favour under everyone’s nose and usually behind the scenes or behind closed doors (with very high entrance fees and no speaking opportunity). They’re hijacking the system.
“UK companies won’t be able to freely trade in the EU post Brexit and EU Patent Trolls can extort UK companies… bad deal”
–AnonymousRegarding the UPC bubble, we’re sorry to shatter or disrupt the echo chamber, but the selfies or photo ops of Lucy with Benoît don’t help. Very fishy all around. We really want to know the reason UK-IPO et al decided to suck up to Battistelli and we welcome leaks on the subject. We never compromised a source and we need to understand what happened behind the scenes here (documents or correspondence).
What UPC means for Brits who are not parasitic lawyers is hardly mentioned at all (anywhere!) and as one person put it, “UK companies won’t be able to freely trade in the EU post Brexit and EU Patent Trolls can extort UK companies… bad deal” (horrible even).
Businesses in Britain have nothing to gain from it, but some trade association which claims to “represent the future” says it “welcomes Government’s #UPC confirmation but says now UK will join it must stay in” (prior to it it just said that “The Government have confirmed it plans to ratify #UPC Agreement in the coming months. See more here”). Well, it can’t be both, can it? For the UK to leave rather than stay in Europe it will have to reject the UPC. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: A look at the rather one-sided coverage from blogs and so-called ‘news’ sites associated with the UPC and/or the EPO, which would have us believe that the UPC is a done deal although it’s far from it
The previous post focused on EPO-bribed media that covered the latest UPC twist. Some media, however, barely needs any bribes. Its funding is derived from readers who are working for law firms with special interests, much like Team UPC.
“UK to ratify UPC,” said the headline from WIPR, and “lawyers cautiously welcome decision” (just lawyers).
Not only lawyers’ opinion should count, what about the rest of the people? What about patent holders? What about people without any patents?
SMEs don't like the UPC. Did they receive a platform for their voice from WIPR? Probably out of the question.
Battistelli’s buddy James Nurton, whose employer did a lot of lobbying for the UPC (Nurton himself occasionally does softball ‘interviews’ with Battistelli, with pre-filtered questions), doesn’t seem to care for anyone but the patent microcosm. Watch this article and what they wrote in Twitter (to be covered separately). We’re supposed to think there’s no controversy and that it’s all fantastic news. One side is obviously being overlooked if not gagged. It’s intentional.
Here is what a blog that was supported by the EPO to promote UPC (and funded by its PR firm) says about the news. It doesn’t get any more promotional than this and the same author is meanwhile interjecting himself into some British media and bragging about it.
The out-of-control EPO is hoping to expand its scope of thuggery beyond the Netherlands and Germany. Guess who will pay the price. Is this desirable for the UK? Or as I put it earlier today, how many ethical/legal breaches does it take before the EPO can justifiably be called the Criminal Patent Office?
Is it fair to pretend that the UPC has no opposition? Is this responsible reporting?
Probably the worst kind or ‘reporting’ came from Bristows, as we noted in our previous post (part one). Here we have a new example of Bristows staff promoting Bristows staff and another Bristows staff — a symptom of what IP Kat recently became. How long before Bristows uses IP Kat to keep spreading some more UPC propaganda (as it already did for over a year)? Darren Smyth broke the news for IP Kat this time around (via), so it wasn’t Bristows for a change. But Smyth plays a role in pro-UPC events, as we noted a few days. There are many UPC promotions/forums/events these days (one is about to start) and they are basically echo chambers. See this new tweet that says: “The @IPSummit next week could get even more interesting depending on #Monday’s news re. #UPC #UK #Brexit”
There is also one tomorrow. That’s the one Smyth is in. Will Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who is acting like an agent of Team UPC this week, be treated like some kind of hero and be put on a pedestal? In our view, her actions on UPC reveal little less than systemic corruption where patent lobbying is on the line and pressure basically instructs her decisions (which even patent law firms admit was surprising as it was utterly irrational).
Here is a blog post titled “May Accepts Supremacy of EU Law on Patents”. To quote: “In her conference speech Theresa May vowed that Brexit would mean “our laws will be made not in Brussels but in Westminster. The judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end”. Well, not quite…”
This is similar to what Glyn Moody wrote. But never mind the issues and conflicts associated with it (likely to derail this plan as we shall show in later parts). Team UPC and/or the patent microcosm (overlaps there) celebrates a potential passage, or looting, from the population of Europe, with patents as a vehicle of taxation. In spite of it being merely an expression of intent one headline we found was “The UK will ratify the UPCA!” Here is what it says:
At the EU competitiveness council meeting today the UK Minister of State for Energy and Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, indicated that the UK will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (see official press release here).
But it may not be able to. Alternatively, it can be revoked once the public backlash starts and it turns out that this is not possible (incompatible with various aspects of UK law, with or without Brexit).
Let those wishful thinkers rest on it for a week or two. The fight over the UPC will likely intensify soon and people who are not patent lawyers start asking all sorts of ‘awkward’ questions. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: An introductory article in a multi-part series about UPC at times of Brexit and Lucy Neville-Rolfe’s bizarre sellout to Battistelli
TODAY’S (or tonight’s) coverage will focus entirely on the UPC, or the EPO’s (along with the patent microcosm) attempt to impose an unconstitutional overhaul across the whole of Europe, for the sake of patent maximalists who plot to tax — in the patents sense — everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Simon Phipps, former President of the OSI, called it an “odd Brexit move” while citing Glyn Moody’s new article which is titled “Theresa May signs up to unitary patent, accepts supremacy of top EU court”. To quote some portions from it:
The UK has announced that it will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, a key step needed to bring the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) into being.
But if the UK wishes to remain in the UPC system, an exception will have to be made for patents, with judges sitting in Luxembourg still interpreting the law that applies in the UK. Some Brexiters may therefore see the government’s announcement as a sign that Brexit no longer means Brexit.
Moody, the author, is actually highly critical of the UPC. He has warned about it for years. There are many fine things for the UK to take from Europe (Moody and I are passionate “Remainers”), but the UPC isn’t one of them. It’s a thorn, a poison. It deserves scorn and rejection. Earlier today we found plenty of other articles about it, many of which composed by patent law firms, especially in Britain, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Bristows, the manipulative liars from British Team UPC, are cited as saying that the “UPC Start October 2017 is realistic says Alan Johnson, Partner at @BristowsUPC” (too optimistic as the UPC may never become a reality at all in spite of yesterday’s news). Here is Bristows pushing a new article about it, obviously hoping that intention means “will”. Andrew Orlowski, a pundit from The Register, highlighted the EPO’s abuses in relation to this and took note of the promotional lies from the EPO’s paid mouthpiece, FT (Financial Times):
Astonishment has greeted the UK’s promise to join Europe’s Unified Patent Court, despite Brexit. It’s a stunning victory for the UK’s powerful legal lobby. The FT euphemistically notes that “the legal system” will be around “£200m a year” richer. Meaning: you know who will be £200m richer.
The announcement was made by the UK’s intellectual property minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe (DBE CMG, PPE Oxford), the Minister of State for Energy and IP. Naturally, it was welcomed by the under-siege European Patent Office (EPO).
Somewhat disingenuously, the IPO states that “the UPC is not an EU institution”. But this isn’t the whole truth.
As Pinsent Masons’ Helen Cline pointed out here in April, “Participation in the new system is only open to EU member states. At an early stage of the negotiations, and following a decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), the UPC Agreement was amended to exclude the participation of non-EU member states.”
A lot of the above quotes just one side of this debate (they never have public debates with antagonists in them). Also, the fact that Battistelli paid large British publications like the Financial Times does not help his credibility. “Reading the comments on IPKat,” wrote an EPO insider, “doesn’t nearly reflect the same picture as media like Financial Times wants us to believe…”
“But if the UK wishes to remain in the UPC system, an exception will have to be made for patents, with judges sitting in Luxembourg still interpreting the law that applies in the UK.”
–Dr, Glyn MoodyWell, the Financial Times is still in mouthpiece mode. It got paid to do this. To make matters worse, the Financial Times is just one among many papers to be paid by the EPO to lie to Europeans.
Sadly, quite a few people ended up linking to EPO-funded propaganda, e.g. this one. I told this person that the Financial Times is bribed for such bias. The person called it “UK’s (somewhat unexpected) decision to ratify UPC,” saying that it was “welcomed by patent specialists seeking pre-Brexit certainty.”
What about all those people who are not patent specialists, i.e. more than 99.9% of the population?
CIPA, part of the UPC lobbying groups (whose members want to suck money out of ordinary Europeans), said “The Government has confirmed it is proceeding with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement.”
“CIPA President Tony Rollins,” CIPA said, “explains why ratification of the #UPC is good news for business in the @FinancialTimes”
“What about all those people who are not patent specialists, i.e. more than 99.9% of the population?”This would be “good news for patent trolls,” Henrion told CIPA and Financial Times, perhaps not taking account their incestuous relationship with the UPC into account.
How many media/press outlets will Battistelli and the EPO bribe before the EPO’s abuses are properly exposed and Battistelli’s regime is stopped? The state of journalism in Europe was already bad (journalists are suffering financially), so payments for bias will only make things worse. This corrupts journalism.
Another Battistelli-paid ‘news’ paper, one which we wrote about many times before (after censorship and stenography for the EPO), is quick to ‘report’ EPO talking points (i.e. lies) about the UPC. Without an accurate translation it’s hard to tackle it point by point.
Having ‘bought’ officials, ‘brought’ the media, bullied real journalists and bullied EPO insiders (war on dissent), Battistelli now rejoices as all those publisher whom he threw millions of Euros at write whatever he wants them to.
“Politicians (who care about Europe) should read the comments on this blog and try to understand the urgency to act against Battistelli!” an EPO insider emphasises, alluding to IP Kat. Over at IP Kat, be sure to stay away from the Bristows talking points about the UPC.
Suffice to say, even the EPO itself wrote about it (warning:
epo.org link) and promoted it via Twitter. Battistelli wants to make the EPO even more dangerous/lethal (with low-quality patents that are applicable in more countries, without even a trial in those countries being needed). What he now claims (all lies) is that he’s solving a problem, but no such problem exists. In fact, Benjamin Henrion wrote to them in Twitter [1, 2] “more trolls, and software patents via the back door… and you are not bound by this court. EPO does whatever it wants.”
“The Government has confirmed it is proceeding with preparations to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement.”
–CIPAThe EPO, as its own workers know, breaks the law all the time and Battistelli acts like a king who can lie all the time and get away with it. The UPC can destroy Europe if Battistelli and his goons get away with breaking the law again. But all he cares about is some bogus “production”!
“EPO and national courts seem to reach broadly the same results on swp[software patents],” someone anonymous noted, “but by different routes.” Also, the person added, “the obvious guess is that the upc will have it’s own route to the same result.”
One way or another we’ll end up with all the worst aspects of patent systems and as Henrion put it, “in computer science, it is called an SPOF (Single Point of Failure).” It is a loss of sovereignty, too.
As many experts admitted, UPC would actually haul software patents along with it, yet some people are in denial about it, especially those pushing hard for the UPC.
“In any case,” one of them said, “#UPC not about patentability. No reason it would have impact one way of other on software patents.”
That’s nonsense. Scope of patents is directly impacted by the interests of those pursing the patents and UPC would attract a lot of patent trolls that crave software patents (easy to massively extort with).
Henrion mentioned even EPO insiders who push the scope envelope, saying “that’s not what Philpott from the EPO said. and many more other experts.”
“Politicians (who care about Europe) should read the comments on this blog and try to understand the urgency to act against Battistelli!”
–Anonymous EPO insiderAlready, as Henrion notes, the EPO issues a sort threat and ultimatum via Managing IP with its propaganda opportunities. It quotes Battistelli’s chief UPC liar, Margot Fröhlinger. To quote: “Seems UK had to decide re #UPC before end of year. Margot Fröhlinger said when .@ManagingIP Patent Forum http://www.managingip.com/Article/3585190/European-Patent-Reform-Forums-in-Munich-and-Paristhe-highlights.html … (&/trial)”
“I was waiting for the ultimatum,” Henrion wrote. At the EPO, pressure (if not intimidation and thuggery once escalated) is nowadays the norm. The EPO is so corrupt that it also bribed European and international media, turning it into a lobbyist of the EPO rather then media.
The EPO is still a monster in the middle of Bavaria and since it’s effectively above the law it can corrupt officials and corrupt the media everywhere under EU statehood. This is a huge threat to a lot of what we take for granted. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: The chinchillas of the Administrative Council are assertively asked to tackle the abusive management of the EPO, which gets condemned not only by CERN but also EPSU, which is working with the Dutch government to end lawlessness at the EPO
EARLIER today we wrote about CERN's (Switzerland) condemnation of EPO management and shortly afterwards even a Swiss blog wrote about it in English. To quote:
The Staff Association of the Geneva-based European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) this week issued a strongly worded statement in solidarity with staff at the European Patent Office. They called the EPO essential to Europe and said the EPO president’s repressive 19th century-style anti-worker tactics are endangering the institution and the European economy.
Later in the day another letter surfaced, this time in SUEPO’s Web site that spoke of “[a] letter dated 28 November 2016 [that's yesterday] from the European Public Service Union (EPSU) to all Members of the Council of the European Patent Office.”
Here are the contents of the letter:
To all Members of the Council of the European
Brussels, 28 November 2016
Dear Members of the European Patent Office Council,
EPSU has no choice but to address a large audience at highest level in the host states of the EPO and at European level. The labour relation problems continue and have reached a new
peak with dismissals and sanctions against a union representative in the EPO office in Munich. We ask you to re-establish the rule of law at the European Patent Office (EPO, approximately 7000 employees, headquarters in Munich).
EPSU already addressed the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the Dutch Ministry for economy and the Ambassadors of the EU Member States in a joint letter with the Dutch Trade Union Confederation FNV dated November 4th, 2015.
The issues addressed in that letter are still unresolved: continuous threats to union representatives by the EPO President Mr Battistelli, violation of workers’ rights, ignorance of a Dutch court ruling.
The situation has now further deteriorated with two dismissals and one sanction of union representatives at the EPO in Munich in January 2016. Despite the harsh comments internally and externally in the media, the EPO President systematically rejects the proposal of an external re-examination of the alleged misbehaviour. The EPO President also rejects the request of suspending all disciplinary procedures until new internal rules are in place which would be in conformity with European rule-of-law standards.
Workers and trade union representatives feel threatened now a union representative has been dismissed in The Hague on the 4th November 2016. This to us is evidence that management is determined to destroy the union. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable for any administration on the territory of European Union Member states. Many more EPO conflicts remain unsolved to date. They have been reported upon since 2013 and brought to the attention of governments and members of parliaments in complaint letters – the whole situation is degenerating into a general crisis at the EPO. The Dutch national Parliament decided to debate the issue around the scandals at the EPO. Such an action is unheard of not only for the EPO, but for any international organisation in Europe.
Time has come for the Member states of the EPO to act – the credibility of Europe as a whole is at stake, if fundamental rights and values expected from EU Member states (and accession candidates) are repeatedly and systematically breached right in the heart of Europe, at the EPO.
EPSU General Secretary
It’s not too clear just how much more of that lawlessness and bad publicity it entails Battistelli and his regime can endure. The longer they endure this and maintain power, the more damage gets done to the whole Organisation, negatively impacting even the delegates. Why do they not realise this and take immediate action? █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Reminder about tomorrow’s “exceptional public delivery” from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and a request for additional information
“Please do not forget tomorrow,” a reader told us in relation to this “exceptional public delivery” — a subject we alluded to earlier this month as it covers:
- Case No. 3785: Fritz No. 2 v. EPO (page empty at the moment)
- Case No. 3796: Vermeulen v. EPO (also empty until tomorrow)
“People who are more familiar with the above cases than the judges assigned to these cases can contract us with additional information prior to or after publication.”“See extracts already available,” the reader told us, taking note of Facebook where ILO is mentioned in relation to the above. Earlier today we mentioned the lack of justice at ILO, which is far too slow and toothless.
People who are more familiar with the above cases than the judges assigned to these cases can contract us with additional information prior to or after publication. We need to know the full story and we can redact names (although the above text from ILO suggests no requests for anonymity from the complainants). █
Send this to a friend
Conflicts of interest and gainful activity (before, after and even throughout EPO service) not a problem for the man who is not obeying even his own rules
Summary: A reminder of the fact that Battistelli was entrenched in French politics even while he was serving at the EPO
THE “king” (in his own mind) of Eponia remains connected to a political party known for rather unethical things (if not corruption), as we noted here before. Plainly and technically speaking, he should never have gotten this job in the first place (he has only done enormous damage to the entire institution). His term left irreparable, irreversible stains not only on the Office but on the entire Organisation.
“Plainly and technically speaking, he should never have gotten this job in the first place (he has only done enormous damage to the entire institution).”
–AnonymousThe subject was revisited in light of a message regarding “who is who [at the] EPO” and since it is all based on publicly-available information, we can safely share this with readers. A person told us that “it is incredible to see what footsteps people leave in the Internet. For instance, I found the attached brochure; in particular page 12 and the picture are EPO-relevant. How cute they are, aren’t they?
“Now you may want to cross-search with FB to see who Ch.B really is. Surprise.. not so many Ch.B around and just one in St.G-en L. On of the contacts must be her brother. In his page he tells us touching story about a 3500€/week vacation rental in Sitges (Spain) which eventually didn’t exist and he complains he was ripped off 3500€. This is of course unfair.”
Battistelli is mentioned again in page 17 or thereabouts, but we don’t know what the above says and we wish to keep this within Fair Use, so no complete PDF here. Regarding the above, a reader explained to us that “this article dates from 2012. At that time Battistelli was awarded the medal of the French Order of merit. More about this is in this Wiki page.”
“Pages 18 is a reference to a wedding celebrated by Battistelli in his function as a vice-mayor. Remember at that time he was already presiding the EPO.”
–AnonymousAll those titles are often granted by one member of the ‘elites’ to another. These are fairly meaningless medals that simply serve to reaffirm one’s membership in a class/high society.
“Actually,” our reader told us, “the article is not per se interesting, but it is the first appearance with family members. Page 18 is a reference to a wedding celebrated by Battistelli in his function as a vice-mayor. Remember at that time he was already presiding the EPO. Far from all legal aspects relating to UPC, EPC, PPI and so on, I try to understand why Battistelli behaves insanely. I have seen cases of a similar behaviour in the Battistelli at a lower level (all FR!!). That it is why I found the picture interesting. A wife, a daughter, a pretty normal family isn’t [it]?
“Far from all legal aspects relating to UPC, EPC, PPI and so on, I try to understand why Battistelli behaves insanely.”
–Anonymous“If you look at Charlote’s FB page you’ll see the daughter is an ambulance driver. Certainly a fine job, but rather unqualified compared to the highly qualified and polyglot staff in the EPO. May be a frustration here?
“If you look among her contacts you’ll see his (adoptive) brother. Nothing special to mention here except that the kid complains he was ripped off 3600€ for a week when trying to book a season rental in Spain via Homeliday. 3600€ for a week? Does this young person know how long the average citizen has to work to be able to spend 3500€ for a vacation? This guy is not even ashamed to claim it publicly. IMHO it shows a complete disconnection from reality. I am sure there a plenty of information to collect from these pages. And may be some helpful info.” █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »