12.16.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Even some large nations with not so many patents (and no consent to the UPC) recently got greased up by Benoît Battistelli
Summary: The Administrative Council of the EPO reaffirms its characterisation as a bunch of docile chinchillas by doing the unthinkable and trashing the appeal boards, which will be headed by a UPC-centric person (who “belongs to the patent establishment,” as the President of FFII puts it)
THE EPO is in crisis and the EPC in its current form is insufficient and inadequate for saving it. Battistelli allegedly uses EPO money to buy votes, exploiting the lunacy which is giving every tiny nation the same democratic weight as large nations. As we put it last night, the Administrative Council of the EPO is now compromised and complicit. It’s just an extension of Team Battistelli (at least parts of it, especially small nations).
As one new comment put it, “within the EPO [...] Mr. Battistelli has the final word on any result.” Here is the comment in full (LP is Prunier, IB is Brumme, and EH is Hardon, all of whom represent EPO staff):
As far as I interpret the results and feedback given, at least LP is well funded for now by his colleagues.
Yes, a more formal and possibly obligatory scheme would be preferred, but those schemes have the drawback of attracting the eyes of the financial authorities, and the need to pay taxes (income taxes/gift taxes) when certain amounts of support are exceeded.
I do not know how well the system works for IB.
Nor have I heard anything about EH’s financial situation.
I also agree with your latest sentence, but having it “within the EPO” will always mean, that Mr. Battistelli has the final word on any result.
The vote on Haar was a disaster and we believe we were the first to cover it. “It’s decided,” one later comment said. “Oh no.”
“They have only themselves to blame for being such a bunch of “poesjes”,” one person said. “Not a whimper of protest … like lambs to the slaughter …”
So Battistelli’s war or retaliation against the Boards (for challenging his authority) carries on…
How many more auditory functions, as originally envisioned by the EPC, will Battistelli attack while maintaining the perception that he obeys the EPC? Battistelli has already crushed at least 4 such functions by our count (unions, Audit Committee, BoA, AC).
Today, confirming what we got yesterday afternoon (published later), the following showed up in the comments:
Result of the AC voting on moving the BoA to Haar:
Yes 21 BE DK MC PT AL BG GR ES HR IS MK RO SM CY MT LT FI LU LV SE RS
No 7 GB IE LI CH FR ML NO
Abstain 7 CZ EE IT PL SI DE HU
It´s good to have so many countries who hardly ever see a patent deciding the fate of the EPO.
That last remark is similar to last night’s remark. We hope to get our hands on the rationale behind each country’s “Yes” vote. Leaks may be needed.
Here is someone having a go at Mr. Ernst, whom some sources believed would replace Battistelli (he can still be his successor):
Also nice to see the host state Germany taking a principled position …
BA [sic] ABSTAINING !!!
Thank you Mr. Ernst.
The following makes an observation that we thought about last night:
According to Techrights knows the votes: 21 Yes, 7 No, 7 Abstain.
Spain being the biggest country to vote yes, NL, GB, FR vote against, DE abstain.
What happened to the old “no vote without the support of the big three and the host countries”? Here we have the opposite….
Regarding Spain, we suggest our readers revisit the following recent series:
We have not yet seen a single article about the above news. Nothing!
Novagraaf is currently distracted by nonsense “news” from EPO, or attempts to distract from erosion of patent quality at EPO. The same goes for LSIPR, which once again gives the EPO a platform.
No wonder people at the EPO are upset. Has the media been silenced by FTI Consulting or something? Except when it comes to puff pieces that serve the EPO’s management? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Pitchforks come from management of the EPO, which keeps threatening if not also attacking the staff
Summary: A 12-point explanation of why EPO staff is right to be mad and anger is justified not just for ethical reasons but legal reasons too
THE COMMENTS in The Register are rarely posted by EPO insiders, so there’s usually not much (new) information in them. An exception, however, could be found yesterday because someone expressed lack of understanding regarding the motivation for protests and strikes. Someone who is likely an EPO insider posted a detailed, enumerated response, which we have decided to reproduce below:
Where to begin…
1. Staff elected representatives. The EPO decided a new system was better and organis ed it’s own vote half way through the year, with different rules. The same people were elected basically but now they are under the direct control of the head of HR.
2. Three elected members have since been dismissed. Another has been demoted. We don’t know why. It is a disciplinary offence to reveal why or even that you are subject to disciplinary proceedings. Others are rumoured to be also threatened.
3. The EPO recognises a union with about 50 members (out of ca. 6900 staff). The union of ca. 3000 members is not.
4. The staff must ask the EPO if it (the EPO) will agree to organise a strike ballot. The EPO has said no on occasions but the ballot is organised according to the EPO’s rules – no communication to staff is allowed. The staff still voted overwhelmingly for a strike.
5. The Dutch High Court declared that the staff did not have the rights according to the UNHRC. The EPO declared immunity and ignored it (but also appealed – to a court it will ignore…).
6. The ILO-AT has just decided that the current appeals system at the EPO is not legal (since 2014). All decisions should be re- done as the EPO chose the staff representatives themselves. The EPO had demoted the two previous representatives for their attempt to have a fair syste.
… will I go on….
[...]
OK. And:
7. Staff are concerned that a suicide on-site could not be investigated by Dutch authorities (immunity!).
8. A member of the Boards of Appeal (a judge so to speak) has been suspended for 2 years (s/he is not allowed to say why but the top management have made particular negative statements to the press concerning the person which are not part of the case, it seems). Internal bodies have not supported the President’s actions but the member is still suspended on reduced pay.
9. The Administrative Council have urged and “stressed” that the President should involve them or independent judges in disciplinary cases involving elected staff representatives. He has still dismissed one since that, without informing the AC in advance.
10. Public computers at the EPO were discovered to be being monitored by software, seemingly contrary to Bavarian law.
11. Staff’s contracts of employment (and future pensions) have been unilaterally altered with no consultation.
12. In all disciplinary matters the committee recommends but the President decides irrespective. Under the committee formed by the EPO, judged deficient by the ILO, the proportion of successful appeals by staff has hit rock bottom.
If someone out there can think of anything to add to the above list (there’s plenty more), consider adding comments below.
EPO management has repeatedly attempted to invert the narrative, painting unions as aggressors and management as the victim. Battistelli even paid some newspapers to construct and reinforce this bogus narrative. With over a million Euros per year spent on peripheral PR agencies, well… some people might actually fall for it. The rebellious element at the EPO is the management with its so-called ‘reforms’ that are totally irrational; Extremely upset, indignant staff is trying to actually protect the Office from this clueless management. We too wish to save the Office. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.15.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What good is the Administrative Council if Battistelli can tame/control it with EPO budget?
Reference: The Yes Men
Summary: The breakdown of results of the vote on exodus of appeals staff, which will probably be exiled to Haar in a few months
“Shameful voting,” one of our readers called it, with “21/7 in favour of Haar move…”
We could use some more information in case someone has it, like what each country argued (if anything). Here are the results of the vote to send the appeal boards away, with potential ramifications for EPO staff in Berlin (if there is something to the rumours):
“Yes” votes came from BE, DK, MC, PT, AL, BG, GR, ES, HR, IS, MK, RO, SM, CY, MT, LT, FI, LU, LV, SE, RS
“No” votes came from GB, IE, LI, CH, FR, ML, NO
Abstained from voting: CZ, EE, IT, PL, SI, DE, HU
We could say a lot more about why each county was likely to vote for or against, but it would be better to wait for some transcripts, minutes, or leaks. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Internally known as Meany Minnoye
Summary: Willy Minnoye, whom many inside the EPO consider to be even more evil than Battistelli, is leaving
“I
s the place getting to hot for Willy Minnoye?”
That’s what one of our sources asked. We heard something to that effect before.
“From the AC,” our source “heard that VP1 is leaving the EPO “for personal reasons” by 1st of July 2017 (before normal end of his mandate).”
Now is a good time to put together a list of past articles about Minnoye, to remind readers why this is wonderful news for EPO staff.
If only several more members of Team Battistelli decided to leave, it would certainly be a step in the right direction and a new glimmer of hope for the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
UPC is dead, but those who spent years promoting it just don’t want to see it (or anyone else to see it)
Summary: The lobby for UPC continues to behave as though the UPC will be a reality “real soon now!” (maintaining an illusion of momentum) even though the reality is rather grim as Britain prepares to exit the EU
THE prevalence and frequency of lies emanating/coming from the EPO (Team Battistelli) and from Team UPC is verging the unimaginable*. For those who still think that the UPC is just around the corner, read the following recent series of articles:
Unlike Battistelli, Team UPC, etc. we have no vested interest (let alone financial interest) besides the truth. A good analogy here would be the “WoMD” claims about Iraq. Some of these people know they are lying through their teeth (unless they actually believe their own lies), but there’s so much money at stake, so they cannot help themselves.
Germany, based on this one patent law firm, wants UPC and patent litigation to be managed around Germany, but with Brexit here in the UK the UPC is essentially in a deadlock. Here is what the firm said:
Yesterday the draft by the German Federal Government for the implementation of the UPC Agreement was published. In this draft the Federal Government gives some statements on the costs and expected case number. The German Federal Government will invest the one-time sum of €1 million for starting the Central Division in Munich and expects a further €450,000.00 of yearly operational costs. Starting the four Local Divisions is expected to cost about €2 million and additional yearly operational costs of €900,000.00.
An article by Robert Smyth and Todd B. Buck of Morgan Lewis also entertains the UPC right now, in spite of the obvious issues due to Brexit. There were also many comments about it in IP Kat this week and last week, clustered around the usual Bristows UPC propaganda that is so habitually posted in IP Kat these days (the site is used by Bristow for propaganda purposes because nobody reads news from Bristows’ own site). Brexit has effectively made the UPC impossible (for the UK at least, if not all of Europe), but the fantasy lives on and Bristows staff writes:
Yesterday, the UK’s deputy permanent representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, signed the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the Unified Patent Court. The Protocol is necessary for the UPC and its judges to carry out their activities. The UK was the final remaining compulsory signatory to the Protocol to sign. The others – France, Germany and Luxembourg – signed the Protocol on 29 June 2016 (soon after the referendum). The UK still needs to pass national legislation to implement the Protocol before it can ratify. This will be done by way of a statutory instrument (SI). The UK’s signature of the Protocol will be recorded on the Council’s website shortly.
Just some words on a Web site (again) won’t remove the obvious legal barriers, not to mention the public backlash that would ensue. Ordinary businesses do not want the UPC; parasitic firms like Bristows do. Bristows is clearly in the propaganda business, not just the patent business. This distortion of facts does the firm no favours. █
______
* Speaking of EPO lies, see this new EPO tweet linking to an article with sentences like “there were roughly 250 patent applications per 100,000 people” and conflating it with innovation/invention. Only a fool or a liar like the EPO’s PR department would use number of patents (expensive for people in poorer countries) as a measure/yardstick for inventiveness.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Where are the real journalists these days?
Summary: Remarks on the conspicuous lack of German media coverage (or even interest) in the face of large protests on German soil, which British media now covers a lot more often than German media
THINGS of historical significance (not to mention economic significance) are happening at the EPO, but for reasons we mentioned here before (or hypothesised about) the German media is nowhere to be seen (or rarely seen). The media is ignoring some potentially big stories while giving the EPO, which is largely based in Germany, far too many puff pieces (or no pieces at all, especially since the FTI Consulting contract got extended in Germany and threatening letters got sent by the EPO to writers).
The publicity stunt that was announced just a couple of days ahead of Administrative Council's meeting was suspicious to us and already we are seeing the yield, like this piece by the firm Boult Wade Tennant. It says:
The EPO has announced that cases will be stayed if they depend entirely on the question of whether products of essentially biological processes are patentable. Relevant cases will be those in which the subject-matter of the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process.
This, in our view, is both a distraction from the real news (common PR tactic) and also an attempt to paint the EPO as strict on patent quality/scope — a subject which was tabled for discussion at the Administrative Council’s meeting (still ongoing today).
Where is the German media? As far as we can tell, only rare mentions have been spotted, including one short article from Juve (mentioned here minutes ago). We are not aware of any articles regarding yesterday’s protest, except this one from WIPR and Kieren McCarthy’s new article which reuses photos that we published yesterday.
To quote WIPR:
Some staff members at the European Patent Office (EPO) held another demonstration yesterday with the support of several EU-based staff unions.
According to a statement from the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), the demonstration took place in Munich. A source close to SUEPO claimed that hundreds of people attended.
SUEPO added that the EPO’s Administrative Council met yesterday and is meeting today, December 15.
“Topics of discussion are likely to include the controversial removal of the EPO Boards of Appeal to Haar [near Munich] and the office’s reaction to judgment number 3785,” it said.
To quote The Register:
Staff at the European Patent Office (EPO) have pleaded with the organization’s Administrative Council for a third time to take action against its rampaging president.
In an open letter sent to the 36 country representatives that make up the council, a group that calls itself the EPO-FLIER team walk through the wave of criticism directed at Benoit Battistelli in recent weeks as he continues a campaign against staff that have resisted his reform efforts.
The letter was sent on the first day of the Admin Council’s last quarterly meeting of the year in Munich – a meeting that has also been marked by large staff protests outside the EPO headquarters.
“It is time for the Members of the AC to act,” reads the letter, “Mr Battistelli is causing immeasurable damage to the Office; he is now untenable.” It asks that he “be removed, or alternatively, to be suspended until the end of his term.”
As usual, the British media covers protests in Germany (EPO) more than the German media covers it. If that’s not rotten, what is? We have contacted German publishers for a while and we never ever received a response. It’s like they have some implicit/delicate internal policy to not touch the EPO because Germany benefits from it.
“Batistelli and his criminal crew has to be stopped NOW,” a person wrote this week, but if Germans don’t even know what’s wrong and there is no media outrage in Germany, how will they fight back? They don’t know what’s going on. Here is the full comment:
Read http://www.ilostaffunion.org/?p=2185 and http://ipso.de/page.php?c=3
Broad support and crowdfunding for our dismissed colleages is what we need. When all labour organisations participate it is a strong weapon. Batistelli and his criminal crew has to be stopped NOW. A neutral and independent investigation should start within the EPO as soon as possible.
There is also this new ode about the EPO:
A t last The Muppet Show returns to tread(on)the Boards
P arty time at Christmas,the office can affords
P erhaps this year Batters can desist from lighting a fag
L et the fire brigade have a night off from this running gag
A move to Haar just needs to be waved through
U nlikely that the revellers will block his newest coup
S o what use are these people? I can only ask
E PO is dysfunctional,they are not up to the task
Speaking of Germany, the EPO is currently promoting an event in Munich, Germany (how valuable to Germany’s economy!) and in response to their invitation I wrote: “Does that mean that those joining you will also be spied on with hidden cameras and keyloggers?”
These are serious offenses if not crimes by German law, but apparently accusing the EPO of crimes gets a person nothing but legal harassment, even in Germany (the letters they sent me previously bore the name of someone else with a German-sounding name). Perhaps this is why German media is so silent. Watch what the EPO's management did to Bavarian TV for daring to point out the growing death toll of Battistelli's horrible regime. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And we welcome more information from the grapevine…
Photo credit: Bird & Bird, 2015
Summary: In spite of a thick layer of secrecy surrounding this week’s meeting of the Administrative Council, information is starting to come out in small doses
YESTERDAY we wrote about Carl Josefsson becoming President of EPO Appeal Boards, based on rumours that reached our ears. Alexander Esslinger, citing Mathieu Klos of Juve, said this morning that “Carl Josefsson [was] appointed president of EPO Appeal Boards by Administrative Council” and here is the source in German (translations would be handy).
There is still silence from the German media (a serious subject we’ll revisit separately) and an unacceptable level of indifference/apathy towards the EPO’s abuses. Not much is being said about the EPO, so we rely heavily on leaks and hearsay. SUEPO has just posted some photos from yesterday’s protest (as did we). Where was the German media? Where were German politicians? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.14.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 6:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo credit: Bird & Bird, 2015
Summary: Early information (or at least rumour) begins to trickle in as day one of the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO reaches its end
NOT much is known to us about the meeting of the Administrative Council of the EPO (information welcome), but we have learned that Carl Josefsson was elected as President of the BoA. We haven’t mentioned Carl Josefsson here before, but a source told us that he is “a senior Judge of Appeal, Svea Court of Appeal,” based on this page from the EPO’s Web site. “I guess that he is a part of the Wolfpack,” our source added. We also understand that this appointment was against the President’s wishes. He gave a talk earlier this year and he appears to be involved in the UPC fantasy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
“But everything is rumour,” our source emphasised. Josefsson is, as far as we know, Swedish. A fellow Swede, Catarina Holtz From the EPO Boards of Appeal (now retired), was a vocal critic of the EPO's management. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA