02.09.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“The mask fell”: When millions wasted on PR and busting of unions (or inside sources, as was the case in Volkswagen) just isn’t enough to keep enforcers away
Blatterstelli — as Florian Müller calls him — was already compared to famous criminals on television
Summary: Rumours and a new rant from Battistelli reinforce suspicions that actions are being organised behind the scenes, possibly as part of an upcoming, high-level campaign to unseat/dethrone Battistelli, who has become a reputational disaster to the European Patent Office (EPO), much like Sepp Blatter at FIFA
LAST week we learned about Battistelli’s propaganda event in Rijswijk, whereupon we asked for more details, taken down and composed by those who attended. They obviously did this anonymously, for their own protection.
One anonymous Twitter user wrote about an hour ago: “I hear the administrative council are asking advice from senior judges. Conference at the end of February I think.”
“One can be left wondering whether they want to get rid of the judge who allegedly exposed Team Battistelli, i.e. the alleged whistleblower, or get rid of Battistelli himself (along with others inside his circle, Željko Topić for example).”Judges do not support Battistelli (in fact, board judges defended the suspended judge even under immense pressure) because Battistelli has already broken basic rules in order to ban judges and his own idea of trials is as laughable as it can be. Even when there’s a ruling (after a truly faulty process, without separation of powers) he ignored the ruling and issued his own. Any judge with a clue (or even a law student) would treat Battistelli as the very antithesis of justice. It’s like something straight out of a famous novel or a satirical play. Since there’s no staging or acting here and real people are unjustly being hurt (there are even nervous breakdowns), this is quickly becoming the shame of Europe.
The above hearsay it curious. One can be left wondering whether they want to get rid of the judge who allegedly exposed Team Battistelli, i.e. the alleged whistleblower, or get rid of Battistelli himself (along with others inside his circle, Željko Topić for example). The EPO is in a state of crisis not because staff (such as examiners) is naughty but because the management clearly does not know how to manage. It follows the model or the example demonstrated by Željko Topić in Croatia. It’s something one might expect from the Kremlin, not from the European Union.
“It’s something one might expect from the Kremlin, not from the European Union.”“I´m trying to send that speech report,” wrote a source to us, who had attempted to securely pass to us some information about the self-aggrandising event set up by Team Battistelli, mirroring the likes of FIFA (before the scandals and dismissals).
“THE FARCE GOES ON” is the title of the report. It is an informal “report on Battistelli´s speech in The Hague on February 4,” to quote the outline. Here is some of the information contained therein (with altered formatting and minor omissions). We highlight one particular bit because of its relevance to us:
On February 3 the EPO was abuzz with rumors about the withdrawal/dismissal of B. Battistelli, the president who has been trying hard, and managed more and more successfully, to bring this European institution into disrepute. It would have been too beautiful. The spineless Administrative Council´s reaction has so far been, in the most fortunate cases, to avoid taking blatantly illegal steps but no firm reaction to his tyrannical decisions. Battistelli´s response to the AC´s first weak sign of dissent, the recommendation that BB start a dialogue with the staff representation, resulted in the dismissal of two members and the demotion of a third, which amounts to a spit in the faces of the European delegates. The European press, in its most part preoccupied with more pressing matters and unlikely to shatter the establishment, had slowly started to report on BB´s attack on the examiners´ elected representatives so BB, like any dictator under the siege of external forces, thought a speech would be a great idea in order to bolster his rule [...] Assad does it, Mugabe still does it, Honecker and Ceausescu did it, so sometimes, but fortunately only sometimes, it works.
Fuelled by the EUR 800,000 injection into PR a presidential show was organized in The Hague in the old Soviet Union style on February 4. People were hoarded and screened, told to behave, and at 10 o´clock the show began. Uplifting music accompanied the images of the EPO and after a short introduction by a continuously smiling moderator with French-accented English which mistook the event for the Eurovision contest the president took the pulpit. Pages of positive statistics started rolling on the huge background screen while the president informed the audience that never had the EPO been more successful. Budget, social situation, unitary patent were all mentioned. In particular the low fees achieved by the negotiating skills of the president against the will of several delegations were mentioned (one can ask why were´t the patent fees lowered but raised when the EPO enjoyed such a great year, but that would spoil the festive atmosphere). A small concession was surprisingly offered, a year of review and assessment – “digéstion”, in the words of BB, which means that the process of reducing the EPO pensions will only start next year. Presented were also the “orientations for the future”: financial perspectives, social review, occupational and safety assessment, review of investigation guidelines (whatever this may mean) and … renewed social dialogue [...] The Q&A time was started by a brave but very discoursive examiner whose question, very polite but sufficiently clear in describing the bad atmosphere in the office and the distance between the management and the staff, related to the main present concern, the silencing of the staff. [...] “I´m a strong believer in social dialogue. My INPI colleagues will testify to this.” was Battistelli´s reply, engaging thereafter in a tirade against SUEPO which were supposed to have slighted him during the homeworking negotiations several years before. And then, suddenly, the mask fell. This man who manages to keep his composure most of the time, lost it. “It is not ILOAT that manages the office. It is childish, childish to write to judges in Geneva.”, he retorted, raising his voice menacingly. For a moment we caught a glimpse of the real face of Battistelli, a man who takes any different opinion than his personally and is ready to destroy the lives of those who oppose him. In a now (in)famous interview he described SUEPO as “mafia” after which he started to eliminate his perceived enemies one by one (two fired and one downgraded). Then the screen presented a page entitled “Disciplinary cases” which started with the bullet point “Contrary to allegations, the EPO unequivocally supports freedom of expression and freedom of association. [...] continuing with the following bullet points:
- Disciplinary cases are not launched because of criticisms expressed against the office.
- Sanctions are applied following major breaches of our staff rules and regulations.
The cases involved:
- Active participation in a damaging defamation campaign against the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members (One can only ask oneself if the description of the SUEPO by Battistelli as “mafia” does not fall under [...] Direct threats and coercion expressed against staff members and staff representatives; Undue financial and moral pressure against EPO employees Pressure brought against witnesses during investigations and repetitive disclosures of confidential matter.
Then, in red color: “The office has a duty of care to protect all staff members.” After the sanctions in Munich and the pending suspensions in The Hague sentences referring to “supporting freedom of expression” have an Orwellian doublespeak ring to them. Then, among soft questions like the proposal of a name to the new building in The Hague, Battistelli explained the role of financial incentives in the examiners´ careers. Here he would have a point if the examiners received instead of between 1,500 and 2,000 EUR yearly bonus (representing an average of 2% of their yearly salaries) a bonus in the same order of magnitude as the president or the vice-president – seven- and six-figure sums are rumored but cannot be confirmed because Battistelli enjoys, very conveniently but totally against the principle of openness in a European organization, a secret contract).
He then embarked upon discussing parts of the health reform and argued that all has been done for the good of the people. “Il faut degonfler les rumeurs. There is no control at home! Ridiculous! The cutting of the lump sum for invalidity would only facilitate the return to work. All the decisions are medical. I´m pragmatic, ready to change …”
Battistelli then reiterated that there will be no major reform this year but after 2016 there will be discussions with the staff representation and the delegations (who “actually wish the pension reform” – with the tacit understanding that Battistelli will defend the staff rights in front of an aggressive AC!).
Questions about patent administration, classification and educational allowance for non-German or -Dutch staff were addressed and answered vaguely, with a bullet point interspersed:
“Quality is our main priority. We are in competition with other offices. We may be the best but we are the most expensive one.”
On the question regarding the fluctuating number of applications Battistelli gave this opinion conveyed also by VP Minnoye in his directors´ meetings, that “Backlog is a mistake. It is not a safety cushion. It is a big mistake. Backlogs are not a strength. It´s a weakness. We´re going to receive more and more applications.” It seems there are few people outside BB and his VP who are convinced of this …
Finally, likening himself with général de Gaulle (?) Battistelli clarified the matter of his bodyguards. “Europe is not the same as before the Paris attacks. I am French, president of a big European organization. After the Paris attacks both the French and the German police recommended that I should take measures.”
The finale was less glorifying than the beginning but all in all it was a pretty good performance. Battistelli showed himself less motivating than Fidel, less pugnacious than Kim Il Sung, but definitely more engaging than Honecker or Zhivkov.
Any dictator relies on a three-pillared system involving propaganda, fear and the loyalty of the repressive state apparatus. Battistelli is assured of the loyalty of his minions, there´s a certain degree of fear among the staff but his propaganda doesn´t fool anybody at the EPO.
The Administrative Council must finally act and replace Battistelli with somebody it can trust! At present the EPO is run by a loose cannon.
The analogy above is priceless. The President of the Banana Republic known as OPOnia not only brags about working with Colombia (in his 'blog') but also fast-tracking patent examination with Colombia (warning: epo.org link). This was posted as ‘news’ the other day, after the PR team produced the latest propaganda which no doubt it will force-feed the press with (as it always does). Perhaps the human rights of Colombia (and patent standards) are something that Battistelli can still feel comfortable with.
It is evident from the above report that Battistelli is growing rather worried about judges, who are not only more qualified than him but can also finish his career. We shall leave the report above in tact, both for future reference and for readers’ information. There are many interesting bits in this report. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Lies and deception from EPO management (and its spokespeople) are adding up
EPO managers are still having issues with Hardon, a Dutch national
Summary: Politicians make it crystal clear that the EPO, despite its unique status, cannot just raise its nose at the rulings of courts of law, definitely not in Dutch territory where the EPO operates
SUEPO recently published this English translation [PDF] (among other languages) of this article which quotes politicians such as Kerstens (Dutch) and Cordery (French) on the ongoing EPO scandals, which now — by extension — implicate many Dutch nationals other than Hardon — people who work in Rijswijk rather than Munich (one of them is a French national, Laurent Prunier who is on sick leave).
Here is the article in English with some highlights that are unique elements (many articles from the Dutch media repeated one another, but some offered new information).
‘The witch hunt has now also reached Rijswijk’
[Image - see PDF]
Demonstrators from the Patent Office pass the German embassy
Bas de Vries / NOS
Written by
Bas de Vries
NOS Net editor
An unusual demonstration in The Hague today, attended by around 400 employees of the International Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk. Whilst at most protests the aim is to speak to as many journalists as possible, on this occasion most people don’t dare to. At least: not by name.
A representative of their own trade union Suepo explains why, from a stepladder. “The witch hunt has now also reached Rijswijk,” he tells the audience at the square opposite the Peace Palace. “That’s why two colleagues couldn’t be here today.”
“Unthinkable”
The details remain unclear, because even telling someone else that you are the subject of an internal investigation is a reason for dismissal at the EPO. But one thing is clear, that President Battistelli is threatening to take action against two employee representatives, after already firing two others and demoting a third earlier this month.
“It is unthinkable that these kinds of things could happen in democratic countries like Germany, France or the Netherlands,” says the Suepo representative. “But within the buildings of our organisation, it is apparently possible.”
Message
The march took the protesters from the French to the German embassy, the two most powerful countries among the 38 Member States who must monitor the European Patent Office. Inside, a Suepo delegation made a statement, in which protest was lodged against the “violation of fundamental rights” by the EPO leadership and in which a reversal of the sanctions against all trade union representatives was demanded.
[Image - see PDF]
‘People feel intimidated.’
Staff members have the support of French member of parliament Cordery as well as members of the Dutch Second Chamber Gesthuizen (SP) and Kerstens (PvdA), all three of whom are
walking alongside them. “We have delivered a clear message to the President of the EPO here today,” says experienced campaigner Gesthuizen. “And that is: you are not above the law!”
“Legal immunity does not mean impunity!” Cordery agrees.
Study
During the demonstration, State Secretary Van Dam sent a letter to the Second Chamber, in which he stated that an independent study into the working conditions at the European Patent Office will be conducted. The EPO leadership themselves were not present.
A spokesman for the Patent Office said afterwards that there is certainly no question of a witch hunt under Battistelli’s leadership. “We can’t go into any more detail on internal investigations, these are confidential. But I do want to underline the fact that we have reached out a hand to the trade union in various ways over the past six months. They have just not wanted to accept it so far.”
Battistelli’s spokesman, i.e. part of the lying PR team (readers can guess who that it), said something laughable because the EPO worked with the media to defame a judge, using information that it now deems “confidential.” All this while accusing yours truly of defamation, after I had shown leaked documents and E-mails that highlight abusive behaviour.
“In war,” Aeschylus (father of tragedy) said, “truth is the first casualty.”
“A liar will not be believed,” Aesop said, “even when he speaks the truth.”
When truth is treason you know you’re dealing with the EPO, or probably working for Battistelli’s EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
EPO staff, patent lawyers, judges and so on try to clean up the mess created by Benoît Battistelli
Summary: A recent article from lawyers’ media (in German) speaks of the great damage (or mess) left by its current president, who has become somewhat of a laughing stock and growingly synonymous with farcical trials even in the circles of stakeholders, not just his own staff
DAYS ago we wrote about German media's reluctance to truly challenge the EPO, calling for cessation of its abuses. One site that typically provided good German coverage on these matters was Juve, which unlike mainstream German media (Juve is more of a niche) actually challenged the EPO’s abuses against judges. It’s good that these issues are increasingly being covered by German media, even if the media targets only a particular (and relatively small) audience. As Juve puts it: “Every year German Commercial Law Firms provides you with a comprehensive overview of commercial law firms in Germany.” This is a site for lawyers.
A reader has translated for us a recent article (link to original: “Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert”). Here it is with minor highlighting:
With his reputation in ruins, Battistelli now has nothing to lose
Mathieu Klos on the reign of EPO President Benoît Battistelli
Benoît Battistelli floats above the clouds, high in the glorious Bavarian sky. The President resides in a luxury apartment in the top floor of the European Patent Office in Munich, and his position is now more secure than ever. As recently as July [2014], the Administrative Council confirmed his appointment early, and then bolstered his position in December by backing him in imposing a house ban on a judge.
In a comparable situation at national level, the embattled Frenchman’s position would scarcely be tenable. His disciplinary measures were ill-timed, and he was already obliged to defend himself against accusations of exceeding his authority in his dealings with the EPO Boards of Appeal. The fact that the latter can hardly be regarded as impartial courts of law is something which only became apparent to those involved as a result of the spectacular decision R19/12.
So, the member states which make up the Administrative Council would be well advised to start a long-overdue structural reform and finally bring Battistelli under control. The damage to the image of this once exemplary Institution could hardly be worse. The European patent community is worried about the professional quality and independence of the judges. Even the Boards of Appeal are resisting Battistelli’s policies. The discord between the President and large sections of the EPO’s workforce has manifested itself in the huge strikes which took place before Christmas.
Battistelli’s opponents within the EPO refer to the Frenchman as the Sun King. However, this comparison with the absolutist monarch falls short of the mark. After all, Battistelli’s aggressive efficiency drive is delivering what many want: massive power for the national patent offices. And the real Sun King, Louis XIV, proved very durable indeed; he reigned for a record 72 years – a record which is still unbroken.
It’s hard to imagine Benoît Battistelli surviving in this job until his term’s end. Some of our sources seriously doubt he’ll even survive this year alone. The longer he remains in power, the greater (and possibly irreparable) damage he will cause. The EPO is rapidly becoming Europe’s shame, despite the fact that it currently employs some of Europe’s brightest people. Our sources indicate there’s a big exodus of these people right now, as they wave goodbye to the EPO along with the high salary (hence the many job openings that are being advertised by the HR and PR teams nowadays). When the EPO loses the talent the whole of Europe is guaranteed to suffer from bogus patents (like in the US where there is no quality control, not anymore). █
“Intellectual property is the next software.”
–Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft patent troll
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli is decapitating SUEPO
Summary: The union-busting actions taken by EPO management in collaboration with Control Risks (for weak accusations against staff representatives) and FTI Consulting (for ‘damage control’) as described in a recent article, in the words of SUEPO lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld
OVER the past year we have composed several articles about fear tactics, including demands of authorisation prior to publication, takedown demands (under legal threats) etc. whose goal is depress, deter, impede and water down statements from SUEPO. Basically, the EPO wants to control its unions, which totally beats the purpose of having unions in the first place. What EPO management shamelessly calls ‘social dialogue’ or ‘union recognition’ is just busting of unions. There is no room for dissent in Battistelli’s villainous EPO. Battistelli acts as though he’s a commander and everyone below him joined a compulsory military service, wherein refusal to take orders or even mere questioning of orders may result in a jail sentence.
A recent article from Dutch media was translated and published by SUEPO [PDF] in three languages. Here is the English version (without the images) and with highlights added.
EPO president Benoit Battistelli. © EPA
European Patent Organisation staff protest against ‘culture of fear’
To take a stand against the culture of ‘fear and intimidation’, employees of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg) are protesting at the French and German embassies in The Hague on Thursday afternoon. Around 2,700 people work at the international organisation in Rijswijk.
By: Bart Dirks, Thursday 28 January 2016, 11:03am
Patent agency hires detectives to investigate own staff
The European Patent Organisation (EPOrg) in Rijswijk has hired a controversial British agency to investigate staff representing their union. According to employees, the investigations are the latest weapon in EPOrg president Benoît Battistelli’s reign of terror. Read the article written in June 2015 by Anneke Stoffelen here.
A protest already took place in front of the Ministry of Economic Affairs in The Hague in December. There are frequent updates on president Benoît Battistelli’s alleged ‘reign of terror’. The Suepo union states that under his reign, work pressure has been increased and Battistelli has unilaterally forced through changes to the labour conditions. Anyone offering criticism may expect to suffer reprisals.
‘A series of investigations are in progress against three employees in the Netherlands,’ says lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld. ‘Even working for the union is seen as undermining behaviour by the board of management of the patent office. More and more people are joining the union, but fewer and fewer people dare to take on leading positions there.’
Dismissal of two colleagues
The concrete cause for the protest is the dismissal of two colleagues and the demotion of a third at the organisation’s headquarters in Munich. One of the fired employees is the Dutch department head of the union, Elizabeth Hardon.
Last week, 1,300 employees protested in Germany, but there has been commotion in Rijswijk and at other locations of the European Patent Office (EPO) for some time. The organisation has 7,000 employees working at five offices in various countries. They evaluate patents for 38 affiliated member states.
Respect the right to strike
Raising the alarm about reign of terror following fifth suicide at European patent office
Staff union SUEPO is raising the alarm on the suicide of an employee of the European Patent Organisation (EPOrg) in Rijswijk. Suepo states that awful working conditions may have contributed to the fifth suicide in three years’ time at the patent office. Read the article on this suicide written in September 2015 here.
Last year, the Court in The Hague ruled that the patent organisation must let unions do their work for collective interests and that it must respect the right to strike. The court of cassation will take on the case on Friday, as the patent office did not adhere to the ruling.
Staff union Suepo raised the alarm on the suicide of an employee in August 2015. A 42-year-old employee of the location in Rijswijk ended his life on the last day of his vacation. Before that, another employee from the Rijswijk office jumped from the seventh floor of the building. Three employees of the headquarters in Munich committed suicide in a little over three years’ time, as a result of awful working conditions according to the union.
We have plenty more to publish about the EPO today. We welcome more material and feedback as this matter is becoming urgent and the future of Europe’s economy may be at stake. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, SCO at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe…”
–Bruce Perens
Summary: The SCO case is still going on and Microsoft has just signed a patent deal with GoPro over its FOSS-based software, relating to “certain file storage and other system technologies”
THE ‘new’ Microsoft is not new. It’s the same old Microsoft — the company that committed crimes to get where it is today. The SCO case makes a return to some headlines, not just in FOSS sites but also in general (but technology-centric) news sites. Groklaw is still uploading new documents [PDF] and FOSS Force wrote: “Judge David Nuffer with the US District Court in Utah gave SCO another day in court last week and returned a judgement against the bankrupt company.”
“It’s the same old Microsoft — the company that committed crimes to get where it is today.”The Register wrote: “The SCO Group has suffered another reversal in its long-running attempt to squeeze some cash out of IBM for allegedly pinching its code and tossing it into Linux and maybe AIX too.”
Remember that this is a Microsoft-funded (in least in part) attack on Linux. It’s over a decade old. It’s nearly 13 years in the making. As Larry Goldfarb from BayStar, a key investor in SCO, once put it: “Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
Yes, Microsoft loves to hide between or behind proxies, otherwise it might jeopardise the lie which is “Microsoft loves Linux.” It might make it harder for Microsoft to seduce fools into Azure for GNU/Linux hosting.
When it comes to patents too, there are Microsoft-connected FRAND lobbyists, as we last noted yesterday, on the same day that WIPR wrote: “Companies that own standard-essential patents (SEPs) must stick to their obligation of licensing them on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the EU commissioner for competition has said.”
“It might make it harder for Microsoft to seduce fools into Azure for GNU/Linux hosting.”The commissioner ought to have mentioned the problems that SEPs FRAND in its own right poses. It’s incompatible with Free/Open Source software (FOSS), and not by accident. There are standard-essential patents where interoperability between file systems is required. See the Samba case (in Europe, where Microsoft fought for file sharing monopoly) and then recall the Microsoft v. TomTom case, where Microsoft fought for a software patents tax in Europe (where such patents are not even legal), impacting Linux itself. FRAND is a vehicle for pushing software patents into Europe and Microsoft loves FRAND for this reason. Remember when Microsoft did this kind of FRAND lobbying with the BSA.
Right now, after Alice, Microsoft is still utilising software patents in an effort to tax everything, exploiting its monopoly to make the tax inescapable. The ‘new’ Microsoft is extorting Android and Linux using software patents on file systems, still (probably exFAT if not FAT also, as per the TomTom case). This new article from WIPR states: “Microsoft has signed a patent licensing deal with action camera maker GoPro.
“According to statement from Microsoft on Friday, February 5, the agreement covers “certain file storage and other system technologies”.
“And some people honestly believe that Microsoft has changed…”“The terms of the deal, in which Microsoft is the licensor, have been kept confidential.
GoPro, based on its own Web site, uses a lot of FOSS, Linux included (and Android is a key target platform). So what we see here is Microsoft engaging in patent extortion against FOSS, yet again.
And some people honestly believe that Microsoft has changed… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The European Patent Office became a crude dictatorial monarchy under Battistelli’s reign
Summary: The European Patent Office’s mechanism of oversight is starting to work just a little because, based on a new report from Juve, Battistelli is now reluctant to make proposals that would prove unpopular among delegates
THE EPO has been profoundly divided between those who dictate/tell people what to do, usually at the behest of large corporations, and those who try to do a good job as patent examiners or judges. What large corporations desire isn’t a patent office that works for the betterment of society (or advancement of science) but an office that provides protectionism to large corporations (e.g. by means of continental lawsuits, injunctions, damages etc.), so just like in politics, there’s a battle here between the super-rich and everybody else. It’s class warfare.
Here is the translation of a Juve article by Christine/Christina Schulze (whom we mentioned here before)– one that we sought a translation of earlier this week. Some bits have been highlighted by us:
Comment: Warning Shot for EPO President Battistelli
Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office, has gone too far. It was stupid to link the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal with talk of a change of location and performance-related pay for the judges – both ideas which aroused consternation among the members of the Boards of Appeal. It was a mistake for the supervisory body of the patent office to give its President free rein. However, the representatives of the member states have now patched things up again. The Administrative Council is finally assuming responsibility for dictating the direction of reform of the Boards of Appeal.
It was logical to decide that the new framework for the reforms be drafted by a sub-committee, rather than by Battistelli. The reputation of the organisation has been damaged by the constant infighting surrounding the Office and its President. These days, the once unconditional support of the Administrative Council for the President is wearing noticeably thin. Some influential delegations are becoming increasingly concerned about the future of the Office. However, this is not to say that Battistelli’s position is insecure. The basic tenet of his reform proposals remains intact, and he is still involved in implementing the reforms, even though the framework is being decided by others.
Battistelli ought to learn a lesson from the Administrative Council’s intervention in the structural reforms. The 38 member states are serious in their demand for social peace to be restored in the Office. The public spat between sections of the staff and the management is disrupting the office. Battistelli has had to backpedal on the thorny questions of the location of the legal branch and the performance-dependent remuneration of the judges. He underestimated the unnecessary upset among the members of the Boards of Appeal. The President must finally attempt a consensus-based approach to social dialogue. A first step would be to set up an independent disciplinary procedure against the member of the Board of Appeal who was suspended by the EPO President. (Christine Schulze)
The article from Schulze is pretty fair and decent. It shows that Battistelli increasingly finds himself unable to just impose — blindly — everything he wishes to (or his corporate masters ask him to). Several months ago we mentioned how Battistelli and Roland Grossenbacher possibly (assuming they are the “two Alpha males”) pushed Alison Brimelow (former EPO President) out and now, in light of yesterday’s tweet from the EPO’s official Twitter account, we cannot help wondering if Grossenbacher and Battistelli are rubbing each other’s backs. As we noted here before, there was a demonstration held in Bern, in front of the Swiss Patent Office – home of Mr. Grossenbacher. People don’t like him and don’t trust him. He is viewed as an ally of Battistelli. We alluded to this before. Right now, says yesterday’s anonymous comment, “what drives [Battistelli] is a world-wide consensus amongst the chiefs of the multi-national corporate community” (euphemism for plutocrats).
Here is the comment in full:
Is BB’s [Battistelli] string puller in Paris, Brussels or Washington DC is the question? Wrong question, I suggest.
I venture to suggest it is all of them. Just as with so many other issues (tax law, patent law in the USA) what drives BB, Paris, Brussels and inside the DC beltway is a world-wide consensus amongst the chiefs of the multi-national corporate community as to what’s best for my corporation. This is a consensus arrived at incrementally, in places like Davos, and implemented through intensive and vigorous lobbying activity in the corridors and restaurants of DC, Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin.
Now listen up! What’s good for the corporation is good for its shareholders. The shareholder and the taxpayer are one and the same aren’t they? Ergo, Mr Democratic Politician, what’s good for my corporation (low fees for bulk filers at the Patent Office, and I don’t care how unpredictable and uncertain patent law becomes) is therefore what’s best for all you taxpayers out there. For a model, look at Singapore.
Just as much of what we read in the media is spoon-fed to the journalists by corporate scriveners, so too is the text of statutes drafted and paid for by the corporations. Democratic politicians are terrified of the power of Big Corp to withdraw co-operation and take its job opportunities elsewhere The politicians compete with each other, which of them can make the offer that is most attractive to the itinerant corporations. And what is it from democratic politicians that best pleases the corporate interests? Asymmetry of course. Just like in the world of finance. Get out of the way. Under the guise of pruning mere bureaucracy, eliminate all regulation. Scrap all employment protection legislation. Clear the way for me to take all the profit while you take all the work, all the risk, all the overhead costs, and you suffer all the losses when they strike.
I suspect that folks like BB can’t see how anything could go wrong with this vision of who shall rule the world. And perhaps it is all for the best. After all, unlike Sovereign States, dictators and fundamental religionists, rival corporations don’t have armies that go to war with each other. Not yet anyway.
An immediate comment afterwards said that the above poster “has obviously never heard of Academi!” (better known as Blackwater, before several renames, which evokes memories of Control Risks, its competitor in Iraq and the EPO’s current external ‘Stasi’).
Another person added:
Puppet on a string – can you please expand upon the reasons why an agenda to shut down the Boards of Appeal can be “read between the lines” of statements from BB?
In the absence of any concrete evidence, I cannot say whether or not there really is a conspiracy to increase the importance of the UPC by effectively destroying the Boards of Appeal. Nevertheless, I do find it surprising (I would say “shocking”, but it is hard to be shocked any more in the context of everything else that has happened recently at the EPO) that there are so many unfilled positions on the Boards.
If there is a desire to achieve a certain objective with regard to the Boards, then BB would be acting beyond his mandate if he was doing anything other than merely reflecting the collective will of the AC. With this in mind, please remind me – was there anything in the minutes of the last AC meeting that addressed the unfilled positions on the Boards?
I know that epi wrote to the AC in December 2015 on the issue of unfilled posts. Does anyone have any information on what reply was received (or what action taken) in response to that letter? If the answer to this question is nothing (other than prevarication), then even I would have to concede that there may be something to this conspiracy theory after all…
One recurring theme in our writings has been the EPO’s focus on rich clients, not European interests or even the interests of the world’s population. The EPO under Battistelli has become an instrument of occupation and subjugation. A lot of examiners do not find it acceptable, irrespective of the compensation they receive. A lot of these people are doctors and professors; they’re not desperate for money and they joined the EPO thinking they would do what’s right and what would favour the discipline/s in which they specialise. A lot of underpaid academics stay in universities (teaching/research) for this reason. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 6:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…y el ¿Porqué la UPC haría todos los asuntos Aún Peor (de Guatemala a Guatepeor)
Sumario: La insistencia de la OEP que permanece arriba de la ley no sólo est bajo fuego en los medios pero también esta siendo desafiada basado en personas familiares con la aplicabilidad de la ley a organizaciones internacionales.
La OEP es una institución avara totalmente fuera de control. No es un servicio público pero un SERVICIO CORPORATIVO AL SERVICIO DE LARGAS CORPORACIONES QUE INCLUSO NO SON EUROPEAS. Es un instrumento de poder para los ricos, he aquí por que sus empleados son bien compensados aunque bajo presión para SIEMPRE OBEDECER A SUS AMOS REALES, que son esas largas corporaciones (o aplicantes mayores que toman la parte del leon de las patentes). No hay elección, no democracia, no libertad. La regla de oro es, ciégamente obedeces lo que te ordenan y aquellos que dirigen a la OEP que hacer (e.g. en enojadas cartas a la OEP) son compañías como Microsoft. Es todo acerca de aparejo del mercado (que de paridad no tiene nada) y potencialmente sacar de competición a rivales potenciales usando patentes. De acuerdo a un sitio de un abogado de patentes, las patentes europeas (en el sentido de la OEP) serán más caras poniéndolas fuera del alcanze de pequeñas compañías europeas. Como los abogados lo pusieron (en un tono positivo): ¨Noten que la renovación de matrículas por aplicaciones por patentes europeas puede ser pagado no más tarde que tres meses por adelantado. Por lo tanto, cualquier renovación de matrículas que venzan a finales de Abril, Mayo o Junio de este año, el presente (bajo) costo puede ser pagado antes del primero de Abril de 2016 para evitar que el costo de la matrícula crezca.
“La OEP es un INSTRUMENTO DE PODER PARA LOS RICOS, he aquí los empleados son bien compensados aunque esten presionados para siempre obedecer a sus amos reales; que son esas largas corporaciones (o aplicantes mayores que toman la parte del leon de las patentes).”Así que los precios de patentes se están disparando mientra que su calidad esta por los suelos (o la esfera de patentes esta siendo ampliada). La OEP esta realmente fuera de control. Es CODICIOSA, apatética (si no hóstil) a los intereses públicos, y claramente necesita ser detenida. Aquellos dentro de la OEP quienes tratan de reformarla consiguen ser severamente castigados, incluso saqueados. Voces de racionalidad son tratadas como criminales, ¨Nazis¨, ¨francotiradores¨, o ¨Mafia¨, ni siquiera como soplones (que en efecto son).
Estamo gratificados de ver este artículo publicado ayer. Mucha gente nos informó acerca de ello. Glyn Moody pasó muchas horas escribiendo un largo, detallado reporte acerca de la OEP. Dió al equipo de relaciones públicas de la OEP una oportunidad para responder a la publicación. Para citar partes de ello:
Imagine un país donde el jefe ejecutivo de una organización pueda agredir a uno de sus empleados, pero cuando esto llega a un tribunal sindical para obtener una compensación, el agredido es informado que nada puede hacerce, por que el jefe ejecutivo disfruta immunidad legal de enjuiciamento. Posiblemente una distante república bananera, puedas pensar, pero fuera de la realidad en Europa.
Y si la presunta agresión y rechazo de queja por motivios de immunidad realmente tuvo lugar en Europa hace un par de décadas. Ocurrió en OEPonia, un raro país que se situa en Europa pero que no es parte de ella todavía.
[...]
Pero pronto, con el arribo de la patente unitaria, ello pueda cambiar, dramáticamente alterando el paisaje de patentes de Europa -y el rol de la OEP. Eso hace más recientes problemas en la tierra de OEPonia de interés no sólo a los que habitan este extraño mundo, pero a todos en Europa, ya que el futuro de patentes allí va a ser grandemente afectado por como- o si estos asuntos se resuelvan.
[...]
Los asuntos no mejoraron a principios de 2014, cuando 905 de los 4,000 votos echados por los empleados de la OEP apoyaron otro ronda de huelgas, que se llevaron a cabo en Marzo y Abril de aquel año. En aquel entonces, SUEPO publicó un sumario de lo que vió como los problemas principales afectando a la OEP.
[...]
Los ¨preocupados empleados¨ de la OEP temían las consecuencias de impulsar un gran número de patentes de baja calidad siendo otorgadas como algo serio: ¨Baja calidad de patentes daña negocios, principalmente PYMEs, inventores privados, y Universidades, ya que los costos legales por infracción y/o litigación son tan altos que normalmente amenazan su fundación financiera.¨
[...]
Como señala el blog de IPKat, para el presidente de la OEP suspender a un miembro del Jurado de Apelaciones es un grosera infracción de los fundamenteales reglamentes de la OEP, y resulta que antes que haya un desacuerdo entre la SUEPO y Battistelli dentro de OEPonia interna crisis constitucional. O como un comentador anónimo lo puso en un IPKat post: ¨¿El presidente de la OEP suspendiendo a un Juez? Wow. Parece que OEPonia se esta convirtiéndo en Banania.¨
[...]
En un blog post titulado ¨2014, otro año exitoso para la OEP,¨ publicado unos pocos días despues de la reunión del Consejo Administrativo mencionado arriba, Battistelli señaló: ¨Nuestra producción, nuestra productividad y costo de controles todos han mejorados.¨ Talvez fueron el foco de Battistelli en productividad, ahorro de costos, y los crecientes pagos fue capaz de hacer a los otros países miembros de la OEP, que animó al Consejo Administrativo a apoyarlo a pesar del creciente coro de quejas y advertencias al más alto nivel.
En el miso post, B.B. concluyo: ¨Gracias a la productividad de nuestros empleados, la fructífera cooperación con nuestros socios, algunas decisiones fundamentales tomadas por nuestro Consejo y la próxima implementación de mayores projectos, tenemos muchas razones de mirar hacia adelante a 2015 con confianza.¨ Esa confianza resulto fuera de lugar: 2015 resultó mucho más tumultuoso que 2014.
[...]
La información acerca del uso de vigilancia de computadoras públicas de parte de la gerencia de la OEP para investigar estos problemas no sólo explican que paso atrás en Diciembre de 2014, trajo también creciente escrutinio de aquellos fuera de OEPonia. Esto incluye una llamada en Junio del 2015 del Comisionario de Protección de Datos de Bavaria por un externo supervisor de protección de datos ser puesto dentro de la Oficina de Patentes Europea.
[...]
Una copia redactada de la última carta de la OEP acusando de acoso a Hardon fue publicada por Roy Schestowitz on his Techrights blog, que se ha convertido uno de los recursos principales para seguir la complicada saga de OEPonia, como esta larga lista de OEP relacionados post hacen entender.
[...]
No contento con su atentado a debilitar la SUEPO al suspender un número de sus oficiales, la gerencia de la OEP comenzó a atacar al mensajero también. Como notamos arriba, el blog Techrights de Roy Schestowitz ha devenido en una principal fuente de información de lo que esta pasando dentro del mundo de OEPonia. Tanto así que en Julio del 2015 al OEP estaba bloqueando acceso a sus empleados al mencionado sitio de Techrights. En noviembre, la OEP fue más allá, mandando una AMENAZA LEGAL a Schestowitz en la que lo acusaba de difamación.
[...]
Al tiempo de escribir esto no esta claro todavía como casi 1 millon de euros que es efectivamente dinero del público será gastado en este atentado ¨de fomentar la presencia de la OEP en los medios.¨
[...]
Como consecuencia, la OEP una vez más tienen un incentivo de otorgar tantas patentes como sea posible en orden de incrementar sus ganancias por renovación de matrículas -un problema que afecta al presente sistema de la OEP, como discutimos arriba. El doble peligro aquí es que la introducción de la UPC con una actitud más acomodadora para aprovar aplicaciones, pueda traer (y lo hará) consigo ambos un stilo de patentes a lo Estados Unidos, y trolles de patentes también estilo americano.
Los trolles de patentes son casi desconocidos (por ahora) en la Unión Europea por que al presente es imposible obtener una patente válida en todos los países de la UE. Sin ella, los trolles de patentes tienen que aplicar por patentes en muchas jurisdicciones, antes de enjuiciar a sus victimas por separado, aumentando sus costos de llevar a cabo esta clase de ABUSOS, y multiplicando los riesgos que puedan perder en algún lugar y vean su decepción descubierta. La nueva patente unitaria esta específicamente designada para fácilmente obtener patentes válidas a traves de toda la UE, algo por lo que los trolles de patentes babean.
[...]
El problema central es que, como sea que ellos esten ¨sorprendidos¨ o preocupados por ello, ni el Parlamento Europe, ni la Comisión Europea tiene ninguna forma de obligar a la OEP a cambiar su comportamiento. La OEP no es una organización Europea; es literalmente una ley a sí misma.
[...]
Si la Unión Europea realmente quiere la imminente corte unitaria de patentes para ayudar a la innovación en Europa, y no ser puesta por los suelos por ella, debe comenzar por reconocer que hay algo podrido en el estado de OEPonia, y comenzar a arreglarlo con audaz y concretas acciones. Anulando la problématica extraterritoralidad de la OEP, y convertirla en una organización de la UE así como finalmente someterla a escrutinio por parte del Corte de Justicia de la Unión Europea, para comenzar bien.
No tiene que decirse mucho mas acerca del artículo, aunque estemos tentados a responder al ¨control de daños¨ embeido allí por la OEP equipo de relaciones públicas. ¨Asombroso artículo en el Reino Unido¨ es lo que dos personas lo llaman (en nuestro canal IRC y otro en IP Kat, a menos que sean la misma persona).
“Abogados de patentes han estado viendo esta información como rumores, informalmente de examinadores y de blogs como IPKat, pero es una maldición verlos todos en un lugar.”
–AnonymousDentro de los anteriores comentarios en este articulo de arriba encontramos este: ¨Excelente artículo acerca de la vergonzosa interna gobernatura de la OEP. Abogados de patentes han estado viendo esta información como rumores, informalmente de examinadores y de blogs como IPKat, pero es una maldición verlos todos en un lugar.
¨Lo que realmente parece increíble,¨ escribio otro comentador. ¨Pensé que había visto lo peor del sector público mientras trabaje en la NHS (empleado de oficina – mayor trabajo para beneficio de pacientes, empleados medicos – trabajo mayoritario para beneficio de los pacientes; gerentes por su lado trabajan por su propio beneficio) pero esto los sobrepasa en un orden de gran magnitud. Gran articulo pero muy preocupante!¨
En la NHS (Sistema Nacional de Salud) los salarios no se comparan con los de la OEP. ¨Estoy curioso para ver una discusión de cómo la gente es reclutada para la OEP,¨ escribió una persona ayer. ¨Tengo el sentimiento que la historia es de amigos trayendo otros amigos ha ido muy lejos y nadie ha comentado al respecto!¨
Los estándares de reclutamiento de la OEP (por lo menos para la gerencia) reflejan estándares de los países del tercer mundo. Pero eso hemos hemos venido a esperar de la OEP. Todo acerca de su gerencia es maliciosa y arrogante. Esta gente sabe que son immunes y lo muestran. Es completamente VERGONZOSO Y EVIDENTE, como la entrevista a Minnoye (VP1) reciéntemente hizo con la TV Holandesa lo reforzó y mostro una vez más.
“!Pensé que había visto lo peor del sector público mientras trabaje en la NHS (empleado de oficina – mayor trabajo para beneficio de pacientes, empleados medicos – trabajo mayoritario para beneficio de los pacientes; gerentes por su lado trabajan por su propio beneficio) pero esto los sobrepasa en un orden de gran magnitud. Gran articulo pero muy preocupante!”
–AnonymousReciéntemente hubo una larga discución en IP Kat acerca de la OEP siendo supuestamente immune. Alguien anonimamente dejo un raro comentario que malament asume que la gerencia de la OEP puede hacer lo que quiera a pesar de la EPC, confiando en argumentos que evaden la realidad de la EPC, como si fuera bien por la gerencia de la OEP simplemente desconocerla y dejar The Hague como medio de chantaje político (el comentario uso Romania). Como resultado de este comentario una larga discusión siguió (aunque el comentario no calificó como trolling, probablemente simplemente un caso de malentendido o mala comprensión). En orden de tumbar o enterrar este argumenteo deseamos citar algunas respuestas (no todas).
Un comentador escribió ¨Articulo 4a [EPC] no requiere una conferencia diplomática (por el propósito de cambiar cosas), requiere un conferencia de ministros para discutir asuntos.¨
Otro dijo: ¨La OEP no es una empresa corporativa multinacional. – Es o supuestamente es- una autoridad intergubernamental establecida por un tratado diplomático internacional.¨
“Munich y La Hague estan escritos en piedra en el Article 6 EPC y esto sólo puede ser cambiado por una plena conferencia diplomática p los estados contractuantes.”
–AnonymousLos ¨asientos¨ de la organización estan definidos por ley. Munich y La Hague estan escritos en piedra en el Article 6 EPC y esto sólo puede ser cambiado por una plena conferencia diplomática p los estados contractuantes.
Para citar este largo comentario: ¨Ex-examinador-ahora-abogado-de-patentes [un comentador anónimo] correctamente menciona que el hecho de que la OEP es la primera organización supranacional cobradora de taxes en Europa ha escapado la atención del público hasta ahora. Esto incluso es más cierto para La Corte Unitaria de Patentes la cual divertirá grandes cantidades de dinero para beneficio de los estados contractantes por no contraparte: La Patente Unitaria será enteramente manejada por la OEP, y los costos de litigación serán pagaods por los partidos delante la UPC. ¿Asi qué nos preguntamos porqué los miembros de tal conspiración tan fiéramente se aferran a la immunidad? El eco en los medios del comportamiento de Battistelli y hacer conocer al público que la situación pueda causar un catáclismo para todos los involucrados.¨
¨Si,¨ escribió otra persona, ¨una amenaza a mover una oficina si ellos no consiguen lo que quieren ha sido una táctica de la gerencia anteriormente. Improbablemente nunca se implementó por varias razones logísticas – si la oficina tiene tantos problemas consiguiendo votar por un presidente, ¿qué oportunidades tienen 38 estados de estar de acuerdo rápidamente acerca de quién de ellos consigue una oficina de la OEP? Y ¿cuánto tiempo antes que un edificio sea disponible, dado el tiempo que el nuevo edificio Rijswjk esta tomando? Tal idea de mudanza es posible pero no realista.¨
“Suficentemente divertido,” otra persona añadió. ¨el pasado Jueves el Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, pag 14), hay una pieza escrita por una dama francesa titulada ¨Autoritarianismo es la norma en Francia“. Nada que ver con patentes por supuesto, pero puede explicar la actitude del Sr. B. B.¨
Sr. B o BB significa Battistelli en todos estos comentarios.
“Suficentemente divertido,” otra persona añadió. ¨el pasado Jueves el Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, pag 14), hay una pieza escrita por una dama francesa titulada ¨Autoritarianismo es la norma en Francia“.”
–AnonymousAquí hay una queja acerca de las condiciones de trabajo: ¨Deberías ver el icónico edificio de la OEP de los setentea en La Hague todavía operando (800 empleados + VP1) medio demolido y los revestimientos de la fachada estan desmoronándose y algunos de ellos cubiertos con una chapas blancas, los lavadores de ventanas no están permitidos ir arriba en la fachada para hacer su trabajo. Alguien me dijo que la disminución de asbestos en la biblioteca fue terminado, los pisos de arriba conteniendo empleados con ventanas operacionales y aire corriente. Aparentemente las ventanas no han sido mantenidas los últimos 20 años y los empleados se quejan acerca de horrendas espacios en sus pequeñas oficinas, la mayoría de ellas con sólo 10 metros cuadrados. El VP1 (gerente de sitio) incluso consiguió conseguir un permiso de las autoridades locales para el sitio de la OEP, el estilo arquitéctonico es llamado ¨Nueva Brutalidad¨ (algunos comentadores usaron esta expresión antes) este estilo se ha copiado en el VP1 estilo gerencial. Hablando acerca de estándares de países del Tercer Mundo en los Países Bajos.. La OEP debería haber sido puesta en su sitio por las autoridades locales on materias de Salud y Bienestar, no son capaces de hacerlo por sí mismos.
En respuesta a la vergonzósa idea de la OEP amenazando moverse a Rumania una persona escribio:
Tal vez no Bucarest, pero que acerca de Riga? (o algun lugar en Polonia donde el gobierno esta implementando una ley similar a la que BB hizo)
De cualquier manera, cualquier estado (hola Alemania) que dice que no puede hacer nada ya que sólo es una voz, debe recordar que este razonamiento fue ampliamente aplicado por los alemanes viviendo en los doce años entre 1933 y 1945.. No fueron alabados por este punto de vista; no es una excusa.
¿Qué podrían estos estados por ejemplo hacer?: forzar a la OEP firmar la (Europea) Carta de Derechos Humanos (o declararlos aplicables) o (algo radical pero un estado puede hacer) anunciar dejar la EPC… Estos son pasos posibles para un simple estado – ellos simplemente QUIEREN salirse e irse (o en pequeño grupo, ejemplo Alemania, los Países Bajos y Francia abandonar la EPC).
Y un tercer punto: Estoy preguntándomen de todas maneras cuando el primer caso termine ante el jurado de apelaciones invocando la falta de una conferencia diplomática (pero querrías tener tal cosoa mientras BB continue reinando?)
Citando la EPC de nuevo, esta persona explica el porqué Art 173 EPC hace la fantasía de Rumania difícil de sustentar:
Disputas entre Estados Contratantes
(1) Cualqier disputa entre Estados Contratantes acerca de la interpretación o aplicación de la presente Convención que no es establecida por negociación será sometida a consideración de uno de los estados afectados al Consejo Administrativo que tratar de crear un acuerdo entre ambos
(2) Si el acuerdo no se alcanza dentro de seis meses desde que la disputa se refirió al Consejo Administrativo, cualquiera de los estados puede someter la disputa a la Corte Internacional de Justicia para una decisión obligatoria.
Así que si hay un sólo Estado Contratante que no esté satisfecho con la interpretación de la EPC, dice el articulo de la EPC 4a, Art 23, Art 146, PPI Art3(4) o el protocolo complementario pueda considerar esta aproximación
Más aún, los parlamentos pueden cambiar la ley, incluseo Grundgesetz Art 24 puede ser cambiado, e.g. para explícitamente sacar algunos principios como Menschenwürde o separación de poderes de immunidad.
Citando Art 173 and Art 4a, otro comentador escribe:
La posición del gobierno es en realidad racional.
Como el gobierno de un estado que hospede a la OEP, debe asegurarse que los organos estatales respeten la immunidad de la OEP al extremo que la OEP tiene y escoja no abandonarlo. Si la posibilidad exista que una corte nacional incorrectamente levante la immunidad de la OEP, entonces el gobierno Holandes esta esencialmente obligado a ayudar a la OEP a apelar contra la decisión de la corte.
Si se considera que la ley internacional lo obliga, el estado Holandes pueda incluso bloquer la corte decisión final, incluso por uno de sus Hoge Raad. (Suponga que la Hoge Raad juzque en favor de SUEPO y que el gobierno Holandes inicialmente permita la ejecución. Ahora otro estado contratante como Hungría considere que los Países Bajos violan la Convención. Hungría puede entonces someter el caso a la Corte Internacional de Justicia por decisión obligatoria (Art. 173 EPC). Si la ICJ juzga a favor de Hungía, entonces los Países Bajos tendrán que ignorar, i.e bloquear la ejecución del juzgado de su más alta corte. Pero el gobierno Holandes puede también por sí mismo decidir que el juzgado de Hogue Raad, aunque de conformidad con la ley nacional, es contraria a las obligaciones internacionales del estado.)
Como estado albergador, dicho gobierno no esta de lado. Todavía esta Art. 20 PPI que requiere que la OEP coopere con las autoridades estatales holandesas en orden de facilitar la observación de regulaciones inter alia acerca de salud pública e inspección laboral. La OEP esta en blatante violacion de ellas. El estado Holandes puede someter una disputa a arbitración internacional bajo Art. 23 PPI. La immunidad de la OEP no la proteje contra la obligación de la decisión (¨premio¨) de un tribunal arbitro (Art. 3(1)(c) PPI).
El estado Holandes también es un estado contratante. Y como tal tiene responsabilidad por el funcionamiente de la OEP, per en este respecto no puede ser distinguido de cualquier otro de los 37 estados contratantes.
Asi que:
(1) Asi que el gobierno como estado contratante, el gobierno holandes trata de exigir a BB una actitud más social y más diálogo
(2) Como gobierno de un estado anfitrión, el gobierno holandes insiste que immunidad de la OEP cuando no sea renunciada debe ser respetada (dentro de sus propios límites obviamente (pero eso finalmente no se ha decidido todavía a nivel nacional).
(3) como gobierno de un estado anfitrión, el gobierno holandes podria eventualmente someter una disputa a un tribunal internacional arbitrario, en orden que la OEP respete sus obligaciones bajo el Art. 20 PPI.
No hay conflicto entre (1) y (2). Mayormente uno se pregunta cuando el gobierno holandes decidirá que el tiempo ha llegado para usar la opción (3).
Art. 172 es citado como sigue:
Art. 4a no tiene nada que ver con una conferencia diplomática de los estados contratantes, tampoco con amendar la EPC.
Art. 172 señala el proceso para amendar la EPC. Requiere una decisión para que la AC sostenga una ¨conferencia de estados contratantes¨, i.e. una conferencia diplomática.
Sin amendar la EPC, la OEP no puede desarce de la rama vacía de La Hague (e.g. transfiriendo empleados a Munich), por que el ¨Protocolo Complementario de Empleados¨ lo prohíbe. La única manera de enmendar este protocolo, es de nuevo, por medio de una Conferencia Diplomática.
Se está volviéndo rápidamente una verguenza nacional (Holanda) y continental (Europa). El gobierno holandes debe intervenir. Necesita intervenir lo más pronto posible.
Aquí hay algunos ejemplos de intervenciones en cuerpos internacionales a pesar de la immunidad:
Hay varios ejemplos de immunidad removida.
1. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Director Gerencial del FMI). Arrestado en Nueva York por la policía por alegaciones de asalto sexual. El juez rechazó su pedido de immunidad diplomática.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion/strauss-kahns-claim-of-diplomatic-immunity-is-rejected.html?_r=0
2. Devyani Khobragade (Diputado Consul General del Consulado General de la India en New York City) acusado por las autoridades de los Estados Unidos de cometer fraude de visa y proveer falsos datos en order de ganar entrada a ese país para una empleada doméstica. Fue arrestado al día siguiente por las autoridades federales.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-25458531
3. Edith Cresson (Comisionaria para la Investigación, Ciencia y Tecnología)
Nombró a un amigo como su consejero personal. (No hizo nada más malo).
La Comisión Europea levantó su immunidad diplomática, para permitirle ser interrogada por las autoridades belgas del poder judicial.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cresson-s-immunity-lifted-1.245668
Un comentario temprano tomó nota de este papel [PDF], añadiendo: ¨Muy interesante la relación entre derechos humanos y la immunidad de organizaciones internacionales.¨
En nuestro canales privados nos enteramos de ¨Remedios contra Organizaciones Internacionales Von Karel Wellens¨. Es un libro en la materia.
“Es una cachetada en la cara del sistema judicial Holandes cuando Minnoye abiertamente dijo que rechaza obedecer cualquier decisión de la Corte Suprema.”
–Anonymous¨Pagina 214 y adelante,¨ nos dijeron, puede tocar la materia. Nos dijeron que ¨el pasaje puede ser encotrado por simplemente googling¨. Para citar una parte relevante: ¨Los imperativos derechos humanos pueden guiar o requerir una limitación o rechazo de cortes domésticas de juridicción immunitaria reclamada por organizaciones internacionales, y el actual ejerciso del sistema adjudicatiorio de las cortes. [...] el estado forum no tendrá derecho pero será obligado – en caso donde la organización internacional no haya cumplido con sus obligaciones convenciónales de proveer adecuados mecanismos de arreglo – a negar immunidad diplomática.¨ Esto es de la pagina 214. ¨Incluso más interesánte, nos dijeron, es pagina 215. Es acerca de violaciones a los derechos humanos por organizaciones internacionales. El libro esta en Amazon, pero no hay descripciones o revisiones. Cuesta $ 95. “Es una cachetada en la cara del sistema judicial Holandes cuando Minnoye abiertamente dijo que rechaza obedecer cualquier decisión de la Corte Suprema.” Nos dijo una fuente. ¨Ha despreciado a todo el mundo (y quiero decir no sólo a los examinadores). – En pocas palabras Minnoye se caga en la noticia – Lo más que se es que se encuentra en la segunda prolongación de su mandato, lo que es illegal, ya que las provisiones son que un puede prolongar hasta los 67 y el ya pasó la marca.¨ █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.08.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When people in power simply disregard whatever ruling they don’t agree with
Summary: An article from Nieuwsuur which provides the words of Liesbeth Zegveld (for SUEPO) and Guillaume Minnoye (for the European Patent Office), reaffirming the EPO’s bizarre notion that it is above the law, even in the face of human rights violations and a court ruling against the EPO
SUEPO has uploaded this English translation [PDF] of an article in Dutch. Below we highlighted some bits of interests which are rather unique to this article:
How far does the immunity of the European Patent Office reach?
Written by
Marijn Duintjer Tebbens
Economics reporter
From tomorrow, the most senior judges in our country will consider the conflict between the Management of the European Patent Office and the staff union. It’s all about the question of whether the office can hide behind its immunity, even if it is guilty of human rights violations.
Nieuwsuur speaks to Guillaume Minnoye, Vice President of the Patent Office, and lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, who is representing the trade union, among others.
Inviolable
The European Patent Office, based in Rijswijk and with 2500 employees, was established to protect the rights of inventors. It is an international organisation and therefore has immunity, which means that it is actually inviolable for a Dutch court.
Last year, however, the Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the immunity does not apply in a conflict with the staff union. The court also judged that the Patent Office is violating the human rights of its employees through its obstruction of this trade union.
The office refused to accept the court’s verdict and brought the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must now rule on the question of how far the immunity of international organisations such as the European Patent Office reaches.
Despite the judgement of the Court of Justice, the European Patent Office believes it does have full immunity.
Lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld
Targeted campaign
The Management and the trade union of the Patent Office have been in conflict since Frenchman Benoit Battistelli began to call the shots. Battistelli is implementing reforms that have met a lot of resistance, resulting in major internal tensions.
According to Battistelli, he is the victim of a targeted campaign by his own staff, aiming to block the reforms. “An orchestrated campaign, the objective of which was to destabilise and discredit the organisation,” he said in October in the newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad.
No law
The staff union, represented by lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, believes that the top boss of the Patent Office is going beyond all the boundaries in his dealings with the union. And that he is therefore abusing his immunity.
“Despite the court ruling, the Patent Office still believes that it does have immunity,” says Zegveld. “But the Patent Office has no immunity when it comes to protecting fundamental human rights. This is what it is now being sued for.”
She thinks the office is acting as though the law does not apply to it. “The law doesn’t work here. I’ve never actually seen this before. There is no law here.”
European Patent Office Employees take to the streets
This afternoon, European Patent Office employees are taking to the streets. The employees are protesting against the poor working atmosphere within the organisation and the culture of “fear and intimidation”, as some describe it.
The direct reason behind the demonstration is the dismissal of two employees and demotion of a third. Among them the chair of the staff union, Elizabeth Hardon, from the Netherlands.
You’re acting as if we live in a lawless paradise. That’s not the case.
Guillaume Minnoye, Vice President of the Patent Office
Lawless paradise
“You’re acting as if we live in a lawless paradise. That’s not the case,” the Vice President of the Patent Office, Guillaume Minnoye, responds, in Nieuwsuur. According to Minnoye, the Court of Justice did not take sufficient account of the fact that the Patent Office has its own legal procedures, which ensure that complaints from the trade union can always be heard and that submitting an objection is always possible.
The Dutch state is on the office’s side. The government is indeed concerned about the social situation at the Patent Office, but states: “Whether it is accused of human rights violations or other violations of international law does not affect whether or not an international organisation receives immunity.”
Minnoye has done a poor job because he helped reinforce the idea that the EPO is arrogant and overconfident. It vainly believes that no matter what crimes it commits, it’ll never be subjected to any scrutiny because it is exempted from the rule of law. We wrote about Minnoye’s attitude before and also reposted some comments on the matter. Just posted was the following anonymous comment that says:
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961
Article 9
1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.
It seems too risky a gambit for Minnoye to just pretend that it’s OK for the EPO to ignore courts at The Hague rather than spin it some other way. Later today we intend to publish some rebuttal to the latest EPO spin in the Netherlands. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA