Even patent trolls accept settlements; but not Campinos... according to Campinos (António Campinos became the sort of uncompromising dictator his father Jorge had fought)

Summary: The father of António Campinos fought to abolish Portuguese settlements (occupation, colonialism); his son opposed settlements (e.g. reparations) with principled members of staff who had clearly been abused by the patent office; see the difference?

TODAY we share an internal EPO letter which alludes to another. It's about how António Campinos mishandled the situation created by his friend, Benoît Battistelli, who also gave him this job (in spite of lack of expertise and experience in this technical/legal domain).

"Perhaps his best skill was covering up the crimes of Battistelli and his cohorts, enablers, co-conspirators, accomplices."One might assume, based on the Administrative Council, that Campinos was chosen to conduct a "social dialogue", but as we showed in recent days -- in a mini-series (see part 1, part 2, and part 3) -- he really sucked at it. Perhaps his best skill was covering up the crimes of Battistelli and his cohorts, enablers, co-conspirators, accomplices. He's just like Commissioner Breton in that regard. It's a severe problem when people net top jobs/roles for their lack of ethics, whereas moral people are expelled because they're seen as a threat to people who commit crimes.

In June last year the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) wrote a "Letter to the President concerning staff representatives/union officials abusively sanctioned" (we named them before, e.g. Mr. Prunier, last mentioned here 5 days ago).

The journey of Team Battistelli certainly resumed with Campinos at the helm. He's a phony negotiator, merely invoking his father's name to exploit his father's reputation. 27 years later he still exploits his dead dad. Shameless and selfish.

"SUEPO Central replies to the President's letter dated 07.05.2019 (written in response to our letter sent to the Administrative Council on 19 March last)," they explained to staff. "In his letter, the President states: "[T]he office cannot accept any terms of settlement especially where demands involve excessively high financial compensation”. This statement is highly disingenuous. The individuals in questions only ask what is owed to them, to restore the status quo ante: nothing more. What is owed may now be substantial, but by no means excessive."

Here's the full letter:

19 June 2019 su19031cl – 0.3.1

Staff representatives/union officials abusively sanctioned (Your letter of 07.05.2019)

Dear Mr Campinos,

We refer to your letter of 07.05.2019, which you sent in response to our letter of 19 March last.

First of all, the celebrated "major" achievements are, in our opinion, only a few, relatively minor steps towards the necessary re-establishment of the Rule of Law at the EPO. These steps are simply the beginning of a long process, and are far from being sufficient to restore social peace after years of massive staff rights violations under Mr Battistelli. Much bigger steps could have been realised in this area if you had been consistent and also replaced the leading HR management, as you have done in the IT department.

Second, allow us to respond to the statement you made concerning several pending cases of abusively sanctioned union and staff representatives. You wrote:

“[T]he office cannot accept any terms of settlement especially where demands involve excessively high financial compensation”. (sic)

This statement is highly disingenuous¹. The individuals in questions only ask what is owed to them, to restore the status quo ante: nothing more. What is owed may now be substantial, but by no means excessive.

In our opinion it is wrong not to consider restoring them to the status quo ante, especially in view of the other politically sanctioned cases already won by our colleagues in front of the ILO. If restoring them to their rightful position prior to being unlawfully fired is not an option for you, as this would expose the abuse of power by the previous and present HR higher management, then what good is a mediation, but a step that will only bring more delay and more cost for the colleagues and for the Office. As such they are better off litigating before the Tribunal to come to a swift end and have clarity.

We consider that you should bring clarity to staff and to the Council and take responsibility for your position.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Michels, Chairman SUEPO Central

.cc Heads of Delegations of the Administrative Council ___ ¹ There may also be a grammatical blunder. Your statement suggests that you cannot accept any settlement – not only those involving high levels of compensation. The term “especially” is not exclusive.

"There may also be a grammatical blunder," the footnote says. Notice how Campinos said that the patent "office cannot accept any terms of settlement" as if the concept of settlement is foreign to a person who claims to be an expert in so-called "IP" (no, not Internet Protocol, Campinos is technically-illiterate based on interviews conducted with him, typically boiling down to a buzzwords salad lacking actual substance).

It's worth noting that Campinos pretends that the Office is low on funds and cannot compensate aggrieved staff while (at the time) planning to spend like a billion euros on buildings that aren't even needed. We more or less know the salary of Campinos and he's no farmer/peasant ("campinos"). This man is a phony and a sociopath, like oligarchs/billionaires who endlessly hoard money while pretending to be "philanthropists" (usually for tax evasion purposes). ⬆