THE EPO's management moves from inside (internal) scandals to outside scandals, too. There's no lack of scandals. After 2,000 EPO articles we've lost track of the number of separate scandals. That number probably does not matter as much as ensuring everything gets documented and is searchable.
"It's worth noting that the EPO did not disclose the Battistelli/Campinos chair-swapping exercise out of genuine will."Go ahead and leap to the obvious conclusion then. No? Why not? Fear of the typical threats/legal bullying from the EPO? I happen to know that at WIPR things do not work like in ordinary publishing houses. They actually removed and later on reinstated a censored version of an article about the EPO's legal threats against me. "It came from above," as the infamous saying goes.
We wish to emphasise that the EPO absolutely does bully the media. And this, in part, is why reporting about the EPO is so appalling (with few exceptions here and there).
It's worth noting that the EPO did not disclose the Battistelli/Campinos chair-swapping exercise out of genuine will. It is not about transparency. Uncharacteristically, 4 days later, the EPO's Twitter account still refuses to even link to this disclosure. We can guess why...
The CEIPI, as it turns out, beat the EPO to it by several days, so it was just a disclosure/face-saving move for the EPO to mention this late on a Friday when everyone is absent (and to never link to it from Twitter, which is unusual and thus rather suspicious; perhaps leaks of internal correspondence can help shed light on the reasoning). ⬆