03.16.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 5:04 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: El resultado de la reunión de hoy con Benoît Battistelli resultó en la imminente initiación de la acción de huelga, a la que Battistelli continua tratando de demorar/bloquear
El Comité Central de Personal extendió una rama de olivo a Benoît Battistelli, pero el se cagó en la noticia. Es tan terco y orgulloso de sí mismo, ya que toma la ley entre sus manos (de las manos de aquellos calificados para hacerlo).
El reportje en la reunión de hoy esta disponible y aquí está como HTML:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Comité Central de Personal
15.03.2016
sc16045cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2
Queridos Colegas,
La reunión entre el Comité Central de Personal y el Presidente acaba de terminar. Duró poco más de dos horas. El Presidente estuvo acompañado de VP 1, VP 2, VP 4, PD 4.3 y otros consejeros.Algunos otros miembros de Comité Local de Personal también estuvieron presentes, pero – como declararón sin intervención – sólo en calidad de observadores. Aunque todos los puntos de la Agenda fueron discutidos y CSC hizo propuestas constructivas, el Presidente no tuvo voluntad de ceder de ninguna manera a nuestras peticiones.
Como su interlocutor en el reciénte llamado a la huelga (91% de empleados votaron a favor), preguntamos al Presidente tomar una posición las siguientes preguntas. Sus respuestas estan sumarizadas abajo:
● ¿Levantará Ud. los castigos disciplinarios contra Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver?
El Presidente dijo que estaba estrictamente atado por las reglas: por los castigos disciplinarios, primero una revisión gerencial debe ser llenada, y el procedimiento de ley (ultimamente revizada por ILO-AT) seguirá. El Presidente no aceptó las propuestas del CSC compatibles con las reglas existentes para recibir consejo y reconsiderar sus desiciones. Tampoco, a pesar del largo tiempo para un procedimient ante ILO-AT, el Presidente no aceptó nuestras propuestas a sujetar las decisiones a una revision externa e independiente al involver renombrados expertos legales. Tampoco supo que una revisión gerencial ya ha sido llenada; sin embargo, PD 4.3 confirmó que este fue el caso.
● ¿Levantará Ud. los castigos disciplinarios contra los previos miembroos del Comité Interno de Apelaciones?
De nuevo el Presidente declaro que estaba atado por las reglas. En este caso el tiempo para una revisión gerencial expiró y el no tiene la intención de revisar las respectivas decisiones.
● ¿Detendrá Ud. las amenazas disciplinarias, investigaciones y retalaciones contra más representantes de los Empleados?
El Presidente no comentó en esta pregunta.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado a revisar las Guías de Investigación junto a la Representación de Empleados basado en un mandato acordado por ambas partes?
El Presidente declaró que consideraría una futura revisión. Sin embargo, consideró cualquier clase de revocación legal y políticamente imposible y rechazó hacer tal proposición al Consejo. Más aún, cualquier emmienda resultante de una futura revisión no puede ser implementada retroactivamente. La CSC estresó que decisiones favorables pueden tener efecto retroactivo. El Presidente no aceptó trabajar junto a Representantes de Empleados bajo un mandato acordado, ya que este implicaría ser usado como derecho de veto a la opinión del Presidente.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado para adaptar las regulaciones de huelga de acuerdo al juicio de la Corte Holandesa?
El Presidente dijo que hubieron muchas decisiones contrarias entregadas por las cortes nacionales que cuestionaron la materia de inmunidad. El Presidente resaltó que la pregunta en cuestión ya ha sido referida a la Corte Suprema con apoyo del gobierno Holandes.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado para revisar las regulaciones de salud, permiso por enfermedad junto a los Representantes de Empleados basado en un acuerdo mutuo?
El Presidente reconoció que revisiones son necesarias y están en progreso. Refiriéndose a un estudio social que viene, el Presidente declaró que esto sería un útil indicador de cambios necesarios. Por lo tanto, no puede contemplar una mayor revisión antes del Otoño.
● ¿Qué otras concesiones Ud. se ofrece a hacer?
No propuestas fueron hechas.
El Presidente no estuvo de acuerdo que la Oficina esta en crisis. Era de la opinión que tenía apoyo pleno del Consejo de acuerdo asu punto de vista. Por lo tanto CSC no puede ver alguna razón de postponer la huelga. Sin embargo, nuestra decisión final en esta materia únicamente será tomada de acuerdo con el resultado de la reunión del Consejo Administrativo.
Su Comité Central de Personal
Si Battistelli ¨no estuvo de acuerdo que la Oficina está en crisis,¨ esta claro que él esta delirando, probablemente viviendo su auto-engaño cuando fué publicado esta tontería hoy en Munich. Una persona online lo llamo ¨DEPRIMENTE & DISGUSTANTE!!! Nada pero MENTIRAS!¨ (¿Qué esperaban de Pinocho?)
Si alguién por favor pudiera enviarnos una traducción, podríamos preparar una respuesta. Hay una gran campaña PR y si lo dejamos así ENGAÑARÁN a mucha gente en Munich y más alla. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 12:55 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No es probable que él acepte estas ofertas (o concesiones)…
La CSC extiende una rama de olivo a Monsieur Battistelli
Sumario: En medio de preparaciones para la huelga y una muy difícil reunión del Consejo Adminstrativo (comenzando hoy 16) el Presidente de la EPO recibe una oportunidad para reconocer sus errores y corregirlos (¿Superará su propio orgullo al aceptarlos?)
Hace VARIOS dias el Presidente del Consejo Administrativo fue contactado en un esfuerzo de minimizar cosas para desacerse de las actividades contra el Sindicato de parte de Monsieur Battistelli. Aquí esta el último comunicado del Comite Central de Empleados (CSC) de la EPO. Sugiere que ellos están buscado una resolución pacífica, en donde los representantes de empleados (SRs) recuperen sus trabajos y se reintegren a la fuerza de trabajo.
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
El Comité Central de Personal
15.03.2016
sc16043cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2
Queridos Colegas,
El Comité Central de Personal ha aceptado la invitación para ver al Presidente en la tarde del 15 de Marzo de 2016 en Munich para discutir la última llamada a la huelga (link). Esto es esta tarde antes de la reunión del Consejo. Una reunión previa el pasado 24 de Febrero con la Srta. Bergot acerca de lo mismo no obtuvo resultado alguno (link).
Como su interlocutor en el reciénte llamado a la huelga (91% de empleados votaron a favor), pediremos al Presidente preguntas concretas, incluyendo las de abajo y regresaremos a usteds con sus respuestas lo más pronto posible.
- ¿Levantará Ud. las sanciones disciplinarias contra Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme y Malika Weaver?
- ¿Levantará Ud. las sanciones disciplinarias contra los previos miembros del Comité Interno de Apelaciones?
- ¿Detendra usted las amenazas, investigacioness y retaliaciones contra adicionales Representativos de Empleados?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a revisar las Guías de Investigación junto a la Representación de Empleados basado en un mandateo que fue acordado por ambas partes?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a re-establecer un apropiado sistema IAC?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a adaptar las regulaciones de huelga de acuerdo al juicio de la Corte Holandesa?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a revisar la invalidez de las regulaciones de salud, permiso por enfermedad junto a los Representantes de Empleados basado en un mandato acordado por ambas partes?
- ¿Qué otras concesiones estará usted ofreciendo?
Su Comite Central de Personal
Todo los puntos resaltados parecen perfectamente razonables considerando la rara naturaleza de las alegaciones y la falta de Battistelli a implementar los juicios como fueron pasados a él por el Comite Disciplinario – algo en que el Jurado 28 se angustiado por (llamó por una suspensión a los tres despidos y una externa re-evaluación de ellos). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The protests are the least of Battistelli’s concerns at the moment
Summary: The ‘damage control’ at the European Patent Office (EPO) continues as the mainstream media in Europe increasingly takes a side, and it’s not the side of the Office
THERE is plenty of unwanted attention for EPO management right now. It started with a semi-political meeting that pretty much had the EPO go ballistic (truly terrible diplomatic approach, Battistelli is an incompetent politician and lobbyist, just like the rest of his party) and then came the Administrative Council’s meetup. This is a subject that we begin to explore in this post. There is a lot more to come.
“It started with a semi-political meeting that pretty much had the EPO go ballistic (truly terrible diplomatic approach, Battistelli is an incompetent politician and lobbyist, just like the rest of his party) and then came the Administrative Council’s meetup.”We begin with a polite request to readers. There are many articles in German [1, 2, 3] and in Dutch right now. We only have a translation for the Dutch one, at least for now (plus another that we wrote about earlier), so that leaves 3 articles in German (plus the utterly poor one we mentioned last night, coming from Munich) that we could use translations of. Contact information and advice can be found here.
Petra Kramer worked on a translation of this article from NRC, which is a large Dutch broadcaster. Human-corrected machine translation of it can be found below. “Paywalled,” Kramer wrote, so “you know the drill.” Highlighted below are new(er) bits that are relatively unique:
It will be a painful meeting
European Patent Office Member States have to choose sides this week in the conflict between their appointed boss of the European Patent Office and the staff.
It was a brief and heated conversation between a critical Dutchman and an indignant Frenchman. So went the meeting between Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs, Labour Party) and President Benoît Battistelli of the European Patent Office in early March, according to sources close to the organization.
Van Dam (38) and Battistelli (65) seemed to talk past each other. Van Dam expressed his concern about the conflict between Battistelli and union SUEPO. The Netherlands and many other member states of the patent office want an examination into sanctions against prominent members of both the union and the works council: two of them have been dismissed, one was reduced in salary.
But Battistelli denounced the “smear campaign” by the union and felt supported by Member States. When the State Secretary repeated his criticism, it was the last straw for Battistelli. The Frenchman got angry and left the office of Van Dam after half an hour. The State Secretary has already expressed concern, says a spokesman. This conversation brought “no new insights”.
The internal tensions at the patent office are to be fought on Wednesday and Thursday in Munich. That’s when the Administrative Council will meet, the highest body in which 38 Member States are represented. The Council wants to force Battistelli to be open about punitive measures against workers. A leaked draft proposal of Battistelli’s supervisors reveals they intend to file a motion of disapproval.
Private investigation service
The conflict at the European Patent Office, which in addition Rijswijk also has offices in Munich, Berlin, Vienna and Brussels affects many interests. The Office established in 1977 adopts patent applications and grants patents valid from Iceland to Turkey. Thus, the agency protects the products and the competitiveness of multinationals like Philips, Samsung, and Siemens, but also those by private inventors.
Under Battistelli, the number of patent examinations of 7,000 employees rose by 14 percent last year, according to the patent office. But workers complain about stress and authoritarian control. The workload would be detrimental to the quality of patent protection and the health of workers. The office has a private investigative service which screens workers and labour inspections are barred from entrance. Even when someone killed themselves in 2013 by jumping out the window of their office on the seventh floor in Rijswijk.
As an international organization, the Agency neither recognizes the national labour laws nor trade union SUEPO. The Dutch government cannot intervene on its own territory, but also wants to remain a pleasant host to other international organizations, like the ICC and the European Space Agency. States are now compelled to speak out about the conflict because the attention of the international media is growing. But none of the critical countries dares to openly apostatize Battistelli – who they reappointed him until 2018 themselves.
Earlier this month Battistelli said in this newspaper that the relationship with member states is “excellent” and the proposal on the external investigation was off the table. But those involved and documents tell a different story. Battistelli would not have “the will” to implement “open discussion”.
For example, the blog Techrights published leaked minutes the management board February. These states that Battistelli has “a clear lack of will” to enter “an open discussion” on “contentious issues” – especially “social dialogue” with the union. The resolution could have been no surprise to the President: the management board had given him “many signs” for “a significant period”, it says.
Battistelli received sharp criticism last December when the management board met in Munich. The president presented beautiful annual figures and proudly told about the increase in productivity and decrease in the number of sick leave and in internal objections. There also were zero days of strike.
The delegates of the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland were astonished. Yes, Battistelli earned praise for the beautiful business results, but why hasn’t the president said anything about the crisis? Member States were deeply concerned about the image of the patent office.
It is not surprising that there are no strikes because Battistelli has to authorize them, the Council continued. If employees want to make a career or want a bonus, they have to work harder. Both higher production and higher quality, does not exist. Volkswagen supposedly sold powerful and clean diesel cars – we know how that ended.
Borders of immunity investigated
All lies, Battistelli said. If there was a climate of fear, the numbers would not have been so beautiful. The president received support from Italy and Croatia, which called the image as portrayed in the media to be biased.
How the meeting in Munich will go cannot be predicted. The proposal has been watered down to gain more support among the Member States, sources say. Battistelli must ensure that punitive measures against employees are fair and he should consider access to external researchers. How to measure it, is still unclear. It could also be that Battistelli embraces the weakened proposal embraces himself.
Possibly the patent office will remain functioning without any changes, but the union and Member States will remain vigilant. Later this year a study on the working conditions will be published. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is examining the limits of the immunity of the office.
The patent office says they do not comment on leaked documents nor on the meeting the state secretary. Spokesmen say that discussions between Member States are very common.
How convenient for them to just decline to comment because it’s not an ‘official’ announcement from them, like their lies about performance.
We look forward to more translations. In the mean time we shall work our way through newly-leaked material and publish to the best our ability/capacity (I’m personally using my holiday quota this week, in order to have more time to examine and report on the situation). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Astonishingly, Battistelli’s temper becomes too much for him to bear and he escapes the building right at the middle of an important meeting
THE EPO faces more embarrassment as Benoît Battistelli, who evidently lacks social skills (recall how he treats delegates), pisses off or shocks yet more public officials. Petra Kramer and others have told us about new media reports such as this. Human-corrected machine translation of this seminal article has been provided to us by Kramer. “Paywalled,” she remarked on it, “but you should know the drill by now; get rid of cookies from NRC.” Here it is in English:
EPO boss left meeting with Van Dam in anger
The Frenchman Benoît Battistelli was irritated during a critical interview with Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs, Labour Party) and walked away.
The President of the European Patent Office in Rijswijk, the Frenchman Benoît Battistelli, showed his infamous temper this week in The Hague. Battistelli (65) was irritated during a critical interview with Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs, Labour Party). After half an hour Battistelli was angry and he left the office of the Secretary of State in the Ministry. Sources close to the patent office confirm.
The international organization in The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Belgium (7,000 employees) accepts patent applications and grants European patents. But the patent office is mainly in the news because of the ongoing conflict between Battistelli and the union that he does not want to recognize, SUEPO. The Governing Council, the supreme body of the patent office which consists of 38 Member States today voted on external research into sanctions against trade unionists.
During the interview on Friday, March 4th State Secretary Van Dam expressed his concerns about working conditions and reputational damage to the patent office. But Battistelli accused the union of a smear campaign and said that he was supported by most Member States. When the Secretary repeated his criticism because it fell on deaf ears, president Battistelli broke off the conversation with Van Dam and he left.
The Secretary of State has expressed concern before about the patent office, a spokesperson for Economic Affairs responded on request. This conversation has delivered “no new insights”, the spokesman said. The spokespersons of the patent office said not to be able make statements about the conversation with the Secretary of State, because they were not informed about the course of the conversation.
A day before the interview at a press conference in Brussels Battistelli said he came to ask Van Dam questions. Earlier, he told NRC:
“Especially if he realizes that the Netherlands benefits from the patent office. We invest 250 million euros in a new building. We put 1 billion euros to the Dutch economy. So I’m going to ask him whether he is aware of these elements ”
Dutch News put it as follows (citing the above):
Angry EU patent office chief breaks off talks with Dutch minister: NRC
[...]
The Dutch minister is said to have raised working conditions and the damage to the patent office’s reputation during the meeting with Battistelli at the beginning of this month.
He accuses the union of slander and says his position is supported by most member states. When Van Dam repeated his concerns, Battistelli broke off the conversation and walked out, the sources said.
Battistelli is very much delusional about the reality at the Office. Either he misleads himself, his (high-level) colleagues mislead him, or the PR team that lies to staff and to journalists got to him. Whatever it is, Battistelli is an embarrassment to the Office. The Organisation, i.e. the Administrative Council, should do the right thing now. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A reader’s contribution to the debate about human rights (or lack thereof) at the European Patent Office (EPO)
In a recent report of Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), Siegfried Broß, a former judge of the German Constitutional Court expressed concern about the situation at the EPO: “Guantanamo would be possible in Germany.”
“But thanks to EPO vice president Guillaume Minnoye, we all know that the EPO-regime would not even accept the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.”While the German Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, did not want to give an interview to Bayerisches Fernsehen, regarding the controversial investigation procedures, the German Federal Justice Ministry wrote: “Germany has called on the President of the EPO repeatedly and urgently to change the rules it has laid down for the investigation procedures in this respect. This has unfortunately not yet happened.”
“Mere requests are too little”, says former federal constitutional judge Siegfried Broß in the BR report. “The Federal Constitutional Court explicitly states that the Federal Republic of Germany may not ‘hold out its hand’ to acts which violate human rights. From that point of view, Germany as a host country is indeed called upon to act. If you exaggerate a little and think ahead, with the way of thinking that has come to light here, Guantanamo would be possible in Germany. And that cannot be – everybody understands that.”
But thanks to EPO vice president Guillaume Minnoye, we all know that the EPO-regime would not even accept the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
“Mr Battistelli has to go!”The Administrative Council (AC) can and should put an end to the EPO’s illegal practice this week. And as the EPO’s major host country, Germany has a particular responsibility for the employees. But since the German minister of justice, Heiko Maas, has been conspicuously cautious with (publicly) criticising the EPO regime, it is currently not clear what the position of the German delegation is. Amongst others, the German government had pushed for the current reforms: “The reforms are necessary and partially long overdue.” The reforms were apparently more important for them than the social peace in the Office.
Heise newsticker mentioned that, for the organisation’s member states, the EPO is above all a ‘cash cow’ whose milk should continue flowing: In 2014 the turnover with patents and procedural fees would have been close to 1.6 billion Euros.
In order to keep the ‘cash cow’ alive, the German delegation must make sure that the EPO’s examiners can do their job properly, in order to be able to fulfil the EPC mandate. A return to the rule-of-law is a necessary first step. It is unrealistic that this can be achieved together with president Battistelli, as he is continuously demonstrating.
Mr Battistelli has to go! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.15.16
Posted in America, Patents at 6:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Removing software patents from the US patent system still not on the agenda in Washington
Summary: A quick overview of some news of interest from the US patent system, where software patents are still on the agenda (but not their official elimination)
SCOTUS
SEVERAL sites recently analysed cases destined (or likely) to reach SCOTUS, the US Supreme Court. Here is one such example. It doesn’t appear as though SCOTUS will entertain the question of software patentability any time soon, so the impact of Alice will stand unshaken/unchallenged.
“It doesn’t appear as though SCOTUS will entertain the question of software patentability any time soon, so the impact of Alice will stand unshaken/unchallenged.”It sure seems like a lot of practicing firms no longer pursue software patents to the same degree as before, neither in the courtroom nor in the patent office. The patent system itself, just like justice, is too slow and expensive. See this new article which says “Judge Indira Talwani emphasized the importance of timely intervention in any patent infringement suit, in a recent opinion out of the District of Massachusetts. In this case, an exclusive licensee of several patents was not permitted to intervene in a patent infringement suit, largely because its motion was filed many months too late.”
When patent cases take years to be settled (or decided on by a court) it contributes a great deal to uncertainty, not just legal costs, e.g. lawyers’ fees. Surely the lawyers and the courts love this a great deal. It’s what gives them job security.
Federal Circuit
“When patent cases take years to be settled (or decided on by a court) it contributes a great deal to uncertainty, not just legal costs, e.g. lawyers’ fees.”The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has contributed to the demise of patents on software in the US. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which introduced software patents in the first place and sometimes interacts with PTAB, has been the subject of focus in several recent posts from Dennis Crouch. Today he wrote that the “USPTO Stall[s] Implementation of Federal Circuit Decisions,” noting that “[a]ccording to Tam’s pi-day filed mandamus action, however, the USPTO Director has indicated that she will not comply with the Court’s until all potential appeals have been exhausted or expired. As such, the USPTO continues to refuse to publish the mark in the Official Gazette.”
Yes, great ‘justice’ right there.
Another very recent post from Crouch said that the Federal Circuit actually expressed reluctance to accept patents on certain computer games. To quote:
In reviewing the application, the Examiner Layno (Games art unit 3711) rejected these card games patents as ineligible under Section 101 – noting that the claim is “an attempt to claim a new set of rules for playing a card game [and thus] qualifies as an abstract idea.” The Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirmed that ruling – holding that “independent claim 1 is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game which . . . constitutes a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” The particular physical steps such as shuffling and dealing are conventional elements of card-gambling and therefore (according to the Board) insufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
It is good and increasingly reassuring to see that CAFC, under additional pressure from PTAB, sees the light on software patents and thus limits them.
Bizarre Patents
A lot of abstract patent applications are being accepted as valid in the US and even rather trivial ones (which children can come up with) end up being accepted by the USPTO, where quality control basically got thrown out the window. Earlier today we saw MIP talking to people whose business is patenting seeds/plants/life and then suing companies (or threatening to sue them). “A new patent shows how airfares may one day depend on your girth,” said this very recent headline as well and speaking of games, here is an article by Joe Mullin about a topic which he covered before and we thereafter mentioned. “Defendant Jordan Gwyther,” Mullin claims, “has said that the litigation could threaten the future of his favorite hobby: live action role-playing, or “LARPing.” Gwyther and his fellow LARPers recreate medieval battles, wearing armor and using foam weapons to stage fights in local fields and parks.”
“Crouch has just tackled the question of prior art, but when examiners are overworked and compensated for grants more than for rejections, does it surprise anyone that almost every US patent application ends up being successful?”Patents on games are probably a step too far, especially when they involve virtual equivalents of something that existed for many centuries (if not millennial timescale). Crouch has just tackled the question of prior art, but when examiners are overworked and compensated for grants more than for rejections, does it surprise anyone that almost every US patent application ends up being successful? The EPO is now aping this trend, quite unfortunately.
Software Patents
Over in the US, where Amazon has some of the world’s most notorious software patents (Amazon is trying to do the same in Europe), Amazon is now seeking patent monopolies on biometric authentication. Biometrics are passwords you basically cannot change, but Amazon patents the misguided idea nonetheless. See some of today’s headlines, such as “Amazon Wants the Patent for Pay-By-Selfie”, “Amazon seeks patent for buying items with a look”, and “Amazon Wants the Patent for Pay-By-Selfie” [1, 2, 3].
“These aren’t “Americans” but multinational corporations that are based in the US.”As one article put it, “Amazon has filed a patent application to allow users to pay for items by taking a selfie. The tech giant argues the move would improve people’s security as they carry out more and more tasks online.”
Amazon also works closely with the CIA ($600 million computing deal), so sending Amazon many of personal, grainy photos isn’t necessarily the smartest thing to do.
“Americans file more patents in Australia than Australians!” screams a new headline today, but is anybody surprised? These aren’t “Americans” but multinational corporations that are based in the US. How many of these patents are on software? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The outcome of today’s meeting with Benoît Battistelli results in the imminent initiation of a strike action, which Battistelli keeps trying to delay/block
The EPO’s Central Staff Committee extended an olive branch to Benoît Battistelli, but he has clinched onto none of it. He’s too stubborn and proud of himself, even when he takes law into his own hands (from the hands of those qualified to do so).
The report on today’s meeting is already available and here it is as HTML:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel
15.03.2016
sc16045cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2
Dear colleagues,
The meeting between the Central Staff Committee and the President has just finished. It lasted for just over two hours. The President was accompanied by VP 1, VP 2, VP 4, PD 4.3 and further advisors. Some Local Staff Committee members were present, but – as they declared with any intervention – only in an observer role. Although all agenda items were addressed and CSC made constructive proposals, the President was unwilling to concede in any way to any of the petitioners’ requests.
As your interlocutor in the recent call for strike (91% of staff voted in favour), we asked the President to take a position on the following questions. His responses are summarised below:
● Will you lift the disciplinary punishments against Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme and Malika
Weaver?
The President stated he was strictly bound by the rules: for the disciplinary punishments, firstly a management review must be filed, and due procedure (ultimate review by ILO-AT) will follow. The President did not accept the CSC’s proposal compatible with the existing rules to receive legal advice and reconsider his decisions straightaway. Neither, despite long pendency times for a procedure before ILO-AT, the President did not accept our proposal to subject the decisions to external, independent review by involving renowned legal experts. The President was not aware that one management review request had already been filed; however, PD 4.3 confirmed that this was the case.
● Will you lift the disciplinary sanctions against the former members of the Internal Appeals Committee?
Again, the President declared he was bound by the rules. In this case, the time for management review had expired and he did not intend to revise the respective decisions.
● Will you stop the disciplinary threats, investigations and retaliations against further Staff Representatives?
The President did not comment on this question.
● Will you be ready to revise the Investigation Guidelines together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed by both parties?
The President declared he would consider a future review. However, he regarded any kind of revocation as legally and politically impossible and rejected making such a proposal to the Council. Furthermore, any amendments resulting from a future review could not be applied retroactively. The CSC stressed that favourable decisions could have a retroactive effect. The President did not accept working together with the Staff Representation under an agreed mandate, since such an agreed mandate would simply be used as a veto right in the President’s opinion.
● Will you be ready to adapt the strike regulations according to the judgment of the Dutch Court?
The President stated that there were many contrary decisions delivered by national courts that raised the issue of immunity. The President set forth that the judgment in question had been already referred to the Supreme Court with the support of the Dutch government.
● Will you be ready to revise the health, sick-leave and invalidity regulations together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed by both parties?
The President acknowledged reviews were necessary and in progress. Referring to the upcoming social study, the President declared this would be a useful indicator of necessary change. Therefore, he could not contemplate a major review before autumn.
● Which further concessions are you willing to make?
No further proposals were made.
The President did not agree that the Office is in crisis. He was of the opinion that he had the full support of the Council with this view. Therefore, the CSC cannot see any reason yet to postpone the strike. Nevertheless, our final decision in this regard will only be taken following the outcome of the meeting of the Administrative Council.
Your Central Staff Committee
If Battistelli “did not agree that the Office is in crisis,” then he is clearly delusional, probably as self-deluding as the people who published this nonsense today in Munich. One person online called it “DEPRESSING & DISGUSTING!!! Nothing but LIES!”
If someone can send us a translation, we can prepare a rebuttal. There is a big PR campaign going on and if left unchallenged it can fool a lot of people in Munich and beyond. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A status report one day before the staff’s demonstration and readers’ thoughts on what may be needed at the European Patent Office in order to attain peace
THE EPO is in a transitory phase right now. Battistelli’s job is at stake and more clarify will be given/provided tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Philip Cordery wrote about this yesterday and we require an accurate translation of it. Based on the opening paragraph (automated translation from Google): “At my request, the European Affairs Committee held a hearing on March 1 the President of the European Patent Organisation (EPO), Mr. Battistelli. This was the question the functioning of the office, on the eve of the introduction of the unitary patent, but also on the social situation deteriorated in the Intergovernmental office.”
“Battistelli’s job is at stake and more clarify will be given/provided tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.”In French (until there is a proper translation this will be a more accurate text): “A ma demande, la Commission des affaires européennes a auditionné le 1er mars dernier le président de l’Organisation européenne des Brevets (OEB), Monsieur Battistelli. Il s’agissait de l’interroger sur le fonctionnement de l’office, à la veille de l’introduction du brevet unitaire, mais aussi sur la situation sociale dégradée au sein de l’office intergouvernemental.”
There is also coverage in Handelsblatt right now (newspaper published in Düsseldorf): “Der 68-jährige Franzose Benoît Battistelli leitet seit 2010 das Europäische Patentamt, kurz EPA. Battistelli antwortet erstmals in einem deutschen Medium auf die massive Kritik an ihm. Zum Interview lädt er in die EPA-Zentrale in München. In der Chefetage im zehnten Stock ist der Ausblick auf die Landeshauptstadt prächtig.”
In the English media, especially patents-centric media, one article speaks about tomorrow’s demonstration. As MIP put it: “EPO staff have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action, but the SUEPO union has postponed organising a strike until after this week’s meeting of the Administrative Council” (summary).
Here is how IP Watch put it:
Over several years, Battistelli has angered SUEPO members by making changes to, among other things, employee strike, health and sick leave rules, internal appeals and investigation guidelines, and by firing three of the union’s representatives, SUEPO said in a 9 March statement.
The last demonstration took place on 17 February, the same day as a meeting of the AC Board, a sub-group of the full panel. The board gave Battistelli a document seen by IP Watch setting out its “very precise expectations from the Office management” on social and disciplinary issues, according to a 17 February summary of conclusions.
The document was necessary “as it appears that there are no other means of conveying the Council’s recurring concerns expressed over the past months,” it said. The board “has to deplore an obvious lack of willingness from the part of the President to embark on an overdue open discussion with the Council on contentious issues – foremost the social dialogue.”
[...]
Staff representatives are “all just waiting” to see what happens this week, said the knowledgeable source. Something is moving in the AC but what and why is unclear, the source said. In any case, the union will not strike without trying again to find a solution, the source added.
As we noted earlier on, Battistelli has received another chance, which he is likely to throw away based on his attitude towards Board 28. Patent quality is definitely getting worse at the EPO, as the previous post already explained (and the EPO ‘results’ are basically bunk). From a technical perspective alone, Battistelli has been a failure, so why was his term even extended at all? Just so that he can finish his effort trying to implement the UPC, which he so badly craves and lobbies for?
“The last rumours on Campinos as a likely successor of Battistelli at the EPO urge me to get this out of my chest,” one reader told us.
“Regardless of this last rumour,” the reader added, “it’s been a while [so] I wanted to vent this out and in fact I think Suepo and possibly most of the staff at EPO should be made aware of it (for what is possible to conceive the making “aware” such a union).”
“The downward spiral had been started, at least, with president Ingo Kober at the end of ’90s.”
–Anonymous“My statement is simple,” told us the reader, “kicking out and/or replacing Battistelli would now actually turn into an easy way out for the largest number of managers to keep the status quo as far as possible. And a lot of them do have this interest.”
We have been hearing the same kind of opinions for quite some time. It does not, however, mean that nothing whatsoever will change after Battistelli is out of the building. There are other people who have been the source of various problems and we named some of them before. Not all have been brought in (mostly as imports from France) by Battistelli.
“The general increasing pressure for productivity has since then selected, with a common and anthropologically natural set of mechanisms, a whole little army of “willing executioners” in all lines of management, in every department.”
–AnonymousTo put it with some names in the words of an anonymous reader: “The state of things with incompetent management, understaffed and exploited or unemployed personnel, all things affecting human resources, productivity pressure, decreasing quality, personal exploitation, personal favours, nepotism, other obscure or parallel or somehow hidden networks, such as freemasonry, have a long history in EPO. The downward spiral had been started, at least, with president Ingo Kober at the end of ’90s. The general increasing pressure for productivity has since then selected, with a common and anthropologically natural set of mechanisms, a whole little army of “willing executioners” in all lines of management, in every department. Some of them have become well established household names, such as Willy Minnoye, Yann Chabod, Karin Seegert, Patrick Bodard, Ludwig Kirst, Albert Koopman, Oswald Schröder, Milena Lonati, Christian Archambeau, Ebe Campi, Theano Evangelou, Omer Bullens, Jacques Michel, Richard Flammer, the entire platoons of directors of the examining departments and clerk units, which are the first line of management above examiners and clerks. Some of them might have lost their state of grace after entering in conflict with their once protectors or simply after that these had changed, some other left the office, often for the same reason, other times, having found better things to do. It’s the case of Schröder, Lonati, Campi, Michel, Archambeau. But most of them are still there, even if in another place and function.
“Not all names above have have had anything to do with most heinous practices (but chances are high that they all have witnessed them, at least), but they are just examples that the uncontrollably harsh reality at EPO is older than Battistelli’s office terms and is made possible by a plethora of otherwise still obscure names, which every day do their bit for their own personal cause at expense of others. And they are many.
“We might be very wrong if we think we are just talking about petty misdemeanor here: old mean corridor rumours, gambits to gain favors, to step ahead of others, to serve superiors and get from them a pat on the shoulders, a nice sentence or a higher marking on your notation.”
–Anonymous“They were there already, long before Battistelli came, they had been nicely selected, placed and replaced by previous administrations. They made possible all the abusive and unrefrained behaviour of a number of managers, directors and principal directors before and now they made possible for Battistelli and his court to do what they do. In essence they are their tools. All these apparently minor characters are responsible every day: they actively take decisions to submit the request of disciplinary procedures to the president, spy on people, issue threats, break rules of the internal Statute (the EPO Service Regulations), manipulate and falsify minutes and reports, bend the procedures of internal appeals, break any rule that otherwise would automatically have the local Police alerted and operating, steal and falsify documents, enter and manipulate digital accounts and computer hard disks, stalk employees at home and wherever possible, (at times simply by using the skills of Control Risks, other times on their own means, using local manpowers, who can be easily bought or easily intimidated: doctors, mail couriers, local bureaucracy…).
“They all do what they do without having Battistelli or any of his strict associate lurking over their heads in their offices. They all do these things actively and willingly: that means within their full discretionary power. They could refrain from such practices, if they only wanted. Once they receive an instruction, they still can chose time and context for it. If they had just a decent threshold for humane values they could surely contribute to de-escalation of what has caused years of pain and abuse to so many people (the suicides being only the tip of an iceberg. But no, why not please the boss? Only because a colleague seems under stress? So they go for it. After all, what else do they have in their lives…
“They had been behaving this way for decades, only more increasingly and relentlessly in recent times time and indeed at a wonderful rate now, under brilliant B.
“At the time where another not too forgotten predecessor was in charge, Mr Lionel Baranes, a somehow exceptionally courageous Vice President, especially by the standards of EPO, who got so much in conflict with this boiling underground of “creative managers” that his term had to be curtailed by using the reason that he was of the same nationality of the President: that would not do. Oh, but that is not much of a problem now, is it? He left with an open letter to the Office with statements along the lines of “the human resources are in a disastrous state”. Didn’t he know enough?
“We might be very wrong if we think we are just talking about petty misdemeanor here: old mean corridor rumours, gambits to gain favors, to step ahead of others, to serve superiors and get from them a pat on the shoulders, a nice sentence or a higher marking on your notation.
“Sure, all this happens, but there are more consistent issues suffering from all this: think of all procedures at a higher scale and for higher purposes. They simply are shaped by the same type of mental habit. Also because they are made by the very same kind of people. If once you wanted a pat on your shoulders from your director, by harassing Mr and Ms, one day you might want to get, say Microsoft, Nestlé, Volkswagen or any other big corporation to pat on your shoulder and maybe show their appreciation more consistently…
“How can we think these thick layers of humanity that make the scaffold of EPO’s human resources and technical resources management will simply stop by changing the very tiny top of the pie? It would be a great mistake to believe it. And how about all those people who know, who always knew and saw and heard, but always kept looking away? Do we think they will become finally active on the good side? Not for one minute. On the opposite: it’s also their interest to keep hiding their past (and present) passive complicity.
“So if any interest in reforming EPO is to be taken seriously, it surely should go well beyond ditching Battistelli in the vain hope that it all will change for the better. Most likely it won’t unless further, deeper work is done.”
–Anonymous“Making Battistelli the scapegoat for what actually has happened at all levels in the EPO for two decades before his term can be a strong temptation. It would also serve the purpose to give off the façade, for the suddenly increased public attention, that an end is being put to maladministration, actually allowing the decades old tradition of mismanagement and abuses to go on as if nothing had happened.
“So if any interest in reforming EPO is to be taken seriously, it surely should go well beyond ditching Battistelli in the vain hope that it all will change for the better. Most likely it won’t unless further, deeper work is done.
“Now, to cast light into the deeds of older and less spotlight-loving management layers of EPO, is what Suepo and finally the Examiners should strive for.
“Especially the Examiners should finally stop being prey of their comfortable and well paid fears, by showing much more openly their direct support to protest and to the people directly hit by abusive unjust measures.” █
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