03.05.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Taking note of what the EPO’s President (for now) said about his salary and a lack of bonus
THE EPO is nearly in a state of total meltdown because Team Battistelli is still running it (effectively in control by force and intimidation). We heard from many sources about Battistelli’s salary and we are close to getting an accurate picture (accurate enough for publication). Battistelli wants people to believe that he nonchalantly revealed his salary to the media the other day. Not a smart move. Will it quickly be amended to support/match ‘the facts’? We are too familiar with such tactics.
“Misunderstandings have very short legs,” someone said the other day, adding:
In this light, the reader will draw his own conclusion on the coincidence of the following statements made in “the Register“ two days after the meeting:
“The EPO extends and olive branch to furious trade unions”
“Determined efforts underway to defuse ticking time bomb”
“The negotiation of the new MoUs has led to a “very positive atmosphere” in recent days, the organization said.”
“The EPO assured us that the president intends to stay on until his term ends in 2018.”
Personally, I believe that at least the last point is very true…. Interestingly enough, after the Union denied the above, the Register investigated and published a clarification:
“the EPO got back in contact with us to point out that there had been a “misunderstanding” during our conversation over SUEPO’s willingness to sign the document. A similar misunderstanding also seemingly occurred when we reported that the revised version of the “request” to EPO management would remove direct criticism of Battistelli.”
Despite the impeccable British understatement, it looks like the journalist may not to be entirely amused of the series of “misunderstandings” from the side of the EPO PR-campaign.
Petra Kramer (PK) has given us a translation from Dutch of a very recent article. In it we see lots of statement from Battistelli, including evidence that he is delusional or in total denial about his failings (or reality itself). This has highlights in yellow below:
“I make 300,000 euros per year”
Interview with Benoît Battistelli, EPO President Battistelli of the European Patent Office responds to the noise. “My relationships are excellent.”
Eppo König
March 4, 2016
Are the reports [true] that he is willing to resign for a severance payment of 18 million euros, ten years salary?
“Completely unfounded,” said the Frenchman Benoît Battistelli (65) Thursday in Brussels. And then the President of the European Patent Office publicly discloses his salary – which was not a public figure thus far. “I earn 300,000 euros per year. And not a single euro bonus.” [Show us your contract ~PK]
The patent office which is building a new prestigious office in Rijswijk consists of two realities.
On the one hand there are the beautiful annual reports Battistelli, president since 2010 and reappointed until 2018, presented to the press on Thursday. The Office (7000 employees) accepts patent applications, grants patents for 40 Member States in and around Europe and protects the products of companies and inventors. While the number of patent applications increased 5 percent last year, unit shipments (patent examinations etc.) increased by 14 percent. Thanks to the reforms undertaken by Battistelli said the bureau. Investment in IT, an internal reorganization for efficiency and bonuses for performance rather than seniority have paid off they claim.
On the other hand there are complaints about the high workload of employees and an authoritarian regime. Last week a document leaked in which Battistelli’s supervisors, the management board [B28], the Member States advocate an external investigation into punitive measures against leaders of trade union SUEPO of which two members were fired. The patent office this week recognized a small union (FFPE-EPO) for the first time, but SUEPO has refused to sign in protest.
After the Netherlands and other Member States insisted, an independent study will be made into the working conditions at the patent office this spring. This includes to the reward system, strike rules, social democracy, the position of trade unions, State Secretary Martijn van Dam said (Economic Affairs, Labour).
Coming Friday Battistelli will have a conversation with State Secretary Van Dam, he said somewhat irritated during the press conference. “I have a lot of questions for him,” he says of Van Dam. “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. But I will be happy to fully inform him about the situation at the patent office.”
You sound a little agitated. Do you find it unjust or unfair that the government wants to do research?
“No, I just think: The Netherlands is a very important country for us. We invest heavily in the Netherlands. So when I see that there might be some misunderstanding, it is important to speak to each other personally. I will give him [Van Dam, ed.] Ask what his preoccupations with the patent office and I will answer him.
“I have not reduced the number of employees, salaries are not reduced, the working conditions have not worsened. What I have done is to better organize our methods to increase our productivity.”
“These reforms were accepted unanimously by our management board. I remember that the Dutch delegate was very active to promote these reforms.”
The management board has proposed an external investigation into punitive measures against union leaders. Are you willing to do so?
“For our disciplinary measures certain rules apply. We have a disciplinary committee, a management review, the opportunity to appeal to the International Labour Organisation. I do not see how you can change those rules. The provisional resolution has been revoked as far I know. Such research is legally impossible. I have indicated that I am open to revise the rules. One of the elements that is apparently important to some, is external intervention in penalties. Why not? I’m open to it. When we introduced it, it can can be done. But before that time, this is not possible.” [See the logical fallacy here? The rules cannot be changed but once they have, it's a give. ~PK]
What is your current relationship with the management board? In the leaked document it states that “no meaningful dialogue” with you could be held on the penalties.
“Again, you referred to a document that has been withdrawn and therefore does not exist. My relationships are excellent. I’ve known these people for years. I have constant interaction with them. In five years, I have done over 200 proposals to the management board. Only one got rejected.” [RSS: recall Benoît Battistelli gloating/boasting along the lines of “an earthquake would be needed for the Administrative Council not to support my major proposals”]
This week you have entered into an agreement with a small union. A small step forward, but not a solution for your conflict with SUEPO representing half the staff.
“You should not judge the patent office with Dutch eyes. We are not Dutch, German or French. We are European, with different cultures and traditions. (…) We will continue the dialogue and the recognition of unions that accept our legal framework. I sincerely hope that SUEPO realize that their “empty seat” is not in the advantage of employees or of the patent office.”
_______________________
[PK: Human-corrected machine translation of: http://www.nrc.nl/next/2016/03/04/ik-verdien-300000-euro-per-jaar-1594385 Can’t access the page? Empty your cookie folder.]
Well, he’ll regret saying this about his salary (the headline of the above article). Based on the latest article from IP Watch, he also tried to spin a much higher salary as the amount he ‘generously’ gives to staff. Total fiction. He views himself as some kind of benevolent dictator, even with a pile of depressed (if not dead) employees under his wing.
“If anything it will decimate his severance package,” PK told me. “Which is great.” We hear it’s getting only worse over time, however, as he angers the Council, reducing his chances of getting lots of millions in ‘compensation’ (maybe there’s the Bygmalion affair to fall back onto). Those who believe that Battistelli can hide his salary for 5 years (despite repeated requests for disclosure) and then finally, under little actual pressure, give it away to the media are in for a surprise. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The statement above (released at the end of Friday) is telling in the sense that it serves to confirm that the management of the EPO is freaking out
THE top-level management of the EPO is collapsing, in spite of the FTI Consulting contract and all these ridiculous publicity stunts. Expect heads to roll pretty soon.
“The EPO’s leadership is freaking out, not because there’s falsehood but because managers there are being cast negatively, for their horrible treatment of their staff.”The TV program broadcast a few days ago apparently got Battistelli all hellish and even got Willy annoyed. Just appeared on the Intranet was the message above and it’s really quite revealing. The EPO’s leadership is freaking out, not because there’s falsehood but because managers there are being cast negatively, for their horrible treatment of their staff. What are the “appropriate steps” then? Sending more threatening legal letters to people? They already seem to have done that to some Germans, based on the wrong name in the first legal letter sent to me.
No doubt the EPO can do nothing about the above except try hard to distract journalists. Some companies brag about EPO patents in self-promotional pieces, but surely nobody (among journalists) will pay attention. So what can the EPO do? Well, there is new propaganda in video form (almost nobody has watched this). It presents the twisted ‘facts’ that are not actually facts and the EPO’s Twitter account works ‘overtime’ only to show that most EPO patent applications don’t actually come from Europe (foreign companies are prioritised). We studied this very closely and did a detailed media survey; we can say that the EPO failed pretty badly with the spin. Some sites just link to other articles rather than write their own and few obscure sites in English pretend that patents and innovation are the same thing in order to come up with misleading headlines. It’s revealing that they willingly got bamboozled by EPO, presumably the PR team. It’s almost like ghostwriting. Consider this article which says: “The patent office said the total number of applications it received rose to 160,022, up 4.8%, and the highest ever number.”
Well, this isn’t true. Many of these applications don’t even make it to the doorstep, as we pointed out before. All these latest articles focus on Switzerland and The Local too continues this propaganda campaign, this time for the EPO (again). WIPR too wrote about this, but it didn’t fact-check. These numbers from EPO are not correct as many of these ‘applications’ never make it to the footstep at the EPO.
When will journalists finally accept that the EPO lies to journalists or twists the facts enough for them to be called liars? Ignore the stream of propaganda. The EPO works not for European companies (for the most part), so what’s in it for Europe?
“The patent office said…”
–WIPRAnother pattern of propaganda which we noticed could be found in Dutch media the other day. Petra Kramer gave us the following translation:
European Patent Office recognizes union
From our editor
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016, 17:26
Update: Yesterday, 07:34
Newspaper Title: “The European Patent Office recognizes a union for the first time’
The European Patent Office (EPO) has given a union the status of social partner for the first time . This should open the way to improving labour relations, which have deteriorated due to a conflict between the EPO boss Benoit Battistelli and part of the staff.
The Frenchman Battistelli has been under fire for some time because he is accused of conducting a reign of terror. According to the Battistelli himself at the core of the conflict are his efforts to increase the productivity of the organization, which he claims are necessary to process a growing number of patent applications. In doing so, he would step on many toes.
Interlocutor
Battistelli now appears to be slowing down. The European union FFPE gets recognition as an official interlocutor. The union, according to insiders is also to be included within the Treaty rules of the EPO, which would be unique for an international organization.
But it is a union with very few members within the patent office. Battistelli especially is engaged in a hard fight with Suepo, the union which is furious about the resignation of two of its EPO-staff members.
Rijswijk
The conflict has a strong Dutch dimension, because EPA has a large office in Rijswijk with 2,700 employees. In January this year, several hundred workers demonstrated in The Hague against the regime of their employer.
_______________________
[PK: Human-corrected machine translation of: http://fd.nl/economie-politiek/1141876/octrooibureau-erkent-vakbond Paywalled but if you google the headline “Europees octrooibureau erkent vakbond” and don’t have cookies from the Dutch edition of the Financial Times you should be able to get access for free. If not, Google cache is your friend.]
This is just a load of nonsense. Not many in the English-speaking media fell for it and we are going to tackle the subject again in a future post, having patiently studied a lot of documents about the role of the FFPE. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 3:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Where are we on this Jihad?”
–Bill Gates
Summary: A look at the phenomenon where people without compassion climb the ‘career ladder’ and hold on tightly to positions of great power
Here at Techrights we often have to deal with companies run by sociopaths. It’s a lot easier to understand the corporate policies, e.g. of Microsoft, when one finally recognises that not ordinary people run things. Microsoft executive Brad Silverberg once wrote: “look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off” (context here) and we can think of many others whose attitudinal problem is irreparable. There are other, equally rude rants from him and Bill Gates is not much better (privately, as eyewitnesses tell, he also bullies people and uses the “F” word).
Here is a quote taken from a relevant page composed last year:
The recent economic slowdown and transitions that companies are going through are creating a favorable environment for corporate psychopaths. This was just one of the issues raised by Dr. Paul Babiak at the Aftermath Foundation’s Web Conversation on May 19, 2015.
In his talk, Dr. Babiak, a leading industrial and organizational psychologist and co-author of ‘Snakes in Suits – When Psychopaths Go to Work,’ provided an overview of the modern-day corporate psychopath. They look and dress the same way as most business people, are charming, persuasive, charismatic, often fun to be around and, at first glance, seem to demonstrate strong leadership skills.
In reality, however, they are unable to build teams, have no respect for individuals, lack integrity and wisdom, and are only interested in their own success – not the company’s. The long-term damage to companies from psychopathic employees includes low morale, ill-informed decision-making, increased risk and reduced productivity.
A reader sent us an article which we thought is worth sharing, no matter who it can apply to.
What’s the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath?
“Some of these people rise to astonishing heights, but in the process they cause enormous damage. They can poison the workplace, putting the health of both their companies and staff at risk… …They are highly manipulative, discrediting others around them, deflecting the issue at hand when confronted. They will threaten and distort the facts, all the while presenting themselves as helpful and or working ‘for the good of the company’. They are very talented at hiding their true motives, while making others look incompetent, uncooperative, or self-serving. The only thing that counts for these people is to win. They prey on people’s emotional vulnerabilities.”
Harvard Business Review “Is your boss a psychopath?”
by Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries, 201
This is the result of some desk research into the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths. We are not medical experts, so please read what we write with that in mind.
What do psychopaths and sociopaths have in common?
Until recently, many people used the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” interchangeably. Both denote an individual who can be cold, manipulative, at times charming, and kind of emotionless. They both suffer from something called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APS). Neither experience shame or guilt. They can be highly intelligent and have excellent people skills. They are frequently charismatic, even beguiling. They can be great speakers. However, they exaggerate what they’re saying, and distort the truth if it’s to their benefit to do so. They are comfortable with lying, if it helps them achieve their goals.
As the name of the disorder – Antisocial Personality Disorder – implies, these people are not a good fit with our society. They don’t share the values or principles of the majority of us. They don’t even share our respect for the law. They are quite simply anti-social. They are so different from us that we fail to understand them. We can’t work out how they function, what their triggers are. They don’t play according to the rules, and we do. Therefore, inevitably, we – and society – lose, if we fail to get a psychopath or sociopath under control.
What are the main differences between psychopaths and sociopaths?
The definition of a sociopath is still evolving. If you do your own research on the internet, you have to check the date of the information you retrieve. The more recent the information is, the bigger the difference you will find between psychopaths and sociopaths.
Current thinking highlights that psychopaths are generally very intelligent, often being the holders of university degrees, while sociopaths frequently have poor academic qualifications and are generally not considered as intelligent. Psychopathy, some say, is a condition present at birth, the product of genetics. Sociopathy, on the other hand, is a consequence of a person’s upbringing; sociopaths often have a pattern of abuse in their childhood.
Psychopaths basically have no feelings and no conscience. Without conscience, they lack an inner voice which could help them to control their behaviour in the absence of external controls:
“Without the shackles of a nagging conscience, they feel free to satisfy their needs and wants and do whatever they think they can get away with.”
Robert D. Hare, “Without Conscience”, chapter “Internal Controls: The Missing Piece”, 1999
Psychopaths don’t have a sense of right and wrong. They make their own rules and see themselves as above the law. They don’t grieve and feel neither guilt nor shame, nor remorse. They have no problem victimising people and will enthusiastically improve their own position at somebody else’s expense. Since psychopaths don’t feel fear, they are able to take extreme risks without worrying about them. They can be impulsive and act without thinking through the potential consequences.
Psychopaths never surrender – they will always viciously defend their position, lying to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. They are sure that they are never wrong. Because they are never wrong, they never apologise. They show no empathy, because they feel none. And they don’t understand that other people have rights. Challenge them at your peril, for they will use all their charisma and communication skills to make you look stupid.
“Psychopaths are dangerous. They’re violent and cruel, and oftentimes downright sinister. They show no remorse for their actions, usually because of a lesion on a part of their brain responsible for fear and judgment, known as the amygdala. Psychopaths commit crimes in cold blood. They crave control and impulsivity, possess a predatory instinct, and attack proactively rather than as a reaction to confrontation …”
Medical Daily “What’s the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath?
(Not much, but one might kill you.)” by Chris Weller, 20141
Psychopaths often feel pleasure when they see others hurt – brain scans on prison inmates diagnosed as psychopaths have shown that the pleasure centres of the brain light up when the inmate sees images of someone in pain.
Contrary to psychopaths, sociopaths do understand right from wrong, but their definition of “right” can differ wildly from our own. One source cites Anders Breivik as a typical sociopath. It was clear in his mind that he was doing something that was “right” when he committed his atrocities in Norway in 2011.2
Sociopaths cannot reciprocate love. They take it and feed off it, but don’t give anything back. They put themselves and their own needs first. To get what they want, they do something called “sociopathic mirroring”. Basically, they simply imitate you and behave the way you do. You value them for this, because you like yourself, and so you like them. Psychopaths also trick you into thinking they share a common bond with you. They don’t. They are emotionally empty, but have the charm and intelligence to make you believe the opposite.
Sociopaths are prone to nervousness, distress and rage. Their deeds are typically sloppy rather than meticulously premeditated and planned. Deeds perpetrated by psychopaths, on the other hand, are often well-planned, and that makes it difficult to catch them out.
In his article in Medical Daily, cited above, Chris Weller concludes: “Psychopaths are fearless; sociopaths aren’t. Psychopaths don’t have a sense of right and wrong; sociopaths do. But both are equally capable of ruining lives and destroying relationships — not that they care.”
When the boss is a psychopath or a sociopath
Psychopaths are attracted by power, and they have the ruthlessness to make it to a high level in companies and organisations. Statistics vary, but there seems to be consensus that while about 1% of the population in general are psychopathic, the figure is much higher among executives. Psychology Today, for example, puts it at about 4%.3
Positions of authority give psychopaths the environment they thrive on. They can bully, manipulate and lie with little danger of negative consequences. With only their own interests at heart, they wreak havoc, causing damage to an organisation and its staff. They destroy wherever they go, and even have fun while they do it.
One of the biggest problems in dealing with psychopaths in the workplace is in recognising them as such. Their charisma and their willingness to lie mean that they are very convincing. People in a position to do something about a psychopath frequently fail to see the problem. They believe the lies. All the evidence in front of them is saying that the problem is with the people who are complaining, not with the person complained about. It can take years for the truth to come out, and sometimes it never does.
“For many dealing with a true psychopath can be a deeply harmful experience. In addition to the emotional pain and anxiety they cause, if you stand up to them they may also do their best to destroy you – character assassination through lies and threats is a trademark.”
The Independent, “Help! My boss is a psychopath”, by Xanthe Mallett, 20154
World of Psychology suggests there are six things to look out for if you’re worried you might be working for a psychopath.5 If your boss is:
-
charming
-
a control freak
-
a narcissist
-
a master of deception
-
avoids responsibility
-
and takes extreme risks
then he could be a psychopath.
Psychopathy is generally considered incurable and untreatable. Harvard Business Review hints that prevention is the best approach, that organisations should put mechanisms in place to stop psychopaths reaching positions of authority. For example, there should be a test already at the recruitment stage for signs of antisocial personality disorders. And there should be channels for sounding the alarm bells: “First, make it easy for rank-and-file workers to express concerns about colleagues. Have an ombudsman or an anonymous tip line.”
“Solche Leute darf man nicht decken oder schützen, und man sollte schon gar nicht auf Einsicht und Umkehr hoffen. Solche Leute kann man nur feuern. Ganz emotionslos.”
Spiegel Online “Zeitbomben mit Schlips”, by Heiner Thorborg, 20156,7
________________________
1 http://www.medicaldaily.com/whats-difference-between-sociopath-and-psychopath-not-much-one-might-kill-you-270694
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.04.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 10:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A replacement to Battistelli should be chosen before the damage becomes irreparable
Summary: The letter in ‘support’ of Battistelli is not a genuine letter of support, the imminent strike is under attack (more so after the FFPE-EPO MoU), and new rumours about Battistelli’s successor are beginning to circulate (Christoph Ernst, on the left)
THERE is no denying that the EPO (both the Office and the Organisation) are in a state of crisis, but a lot of it can be resolved if the Organisation removes Team Battistelli from the Office. The folly has gone way too far and it’s time to undo the coup. The EPO (Organisation) needs to start afresh and acknowledge this past failure to the world, including to stakeholders whose money keeps the EPO alive.
Christina Schulze wrote yet another strongly-worded article about Benoît Battistelli over at Juve (translations would be more than welcome) while other German (or Austrian) media did something similar this week, with few exceptions*. Thankfully, despite all the propaganda (notably unions and results), the press stays focused on the real stories, not the distractions from FTI Consulting (peripheral PR reinforcement) and the EPO's in-house PR team that habitually resorts to lying.
“The folly has gone way too far and it’s time to undo the coup.”Some talking points, other than the unions and results, say that Battistelli magically won back the support of the Council. This is a lie.
“What PD Roberta Romano G is up to,” according to our source, is no good. According to information that we privately received, “PD Roberta Romano-Götsch abuses her position as principal director to “volunteer” subordinates to sign the letter in support of Battistelli. Dozens have been intimidated into signing the letter. Collecting signatures under duress is a scandal in an international organization that should lead by example. My prayer to the AC: deliver us from Battistelli!”
“Thankfully, despite all the propaganda (notably unions and results), the press stays focused on the real stories, not the distractions from FTI Consulting (peripheral PR reinforcement) and the EPO’s in-house PR team that habitually resorts to lying.”Reading between the lines and looking deeper inside documents, we have learned that Battistelli gets Minnoye’s help in this crisis. This isn’t too shocking given Minnoye's epic television appearance. “These event triggered several reactions from the Office management,” we heard. “First, between Thursday 18.02 to 23.02, the President and in first instance the VP of DG1, Mr. Minnoye started a call to all managers to stand behind them as one man by signing a petition at the attention of the AC. As far as we are informed the signature reaction is, at best, sluggish. In the majority of the Office, the managers seem to be unwilling to sign the call. Secondly on Friday 19, the head of HR (PD 4.3) invited all elected Staff Committee members (central and local) to a meeting on Wednesday 25.”
This is very much indicative of a disaster.
“Some talking points, other than the unions and results, say that Battistelli magically won back the support of the Council. This is a lie.”There is a strike coming (Battistelli keeps spinning this in the media by saying there were no strikes last year) and Team Battistelli is trying quite aggressively to prevent the strike from happening (see these documents which we published last night — mentioned before, now available as text). It may seem expected, but such moves mostly serve to alienate the staff and motivate stronger action against the management which strives to prevent basis rights, such as the right to strike.
Someone has leaked to us a CSC (Central Staff Committee) document which we present below without comment:
Information on the call for strike “Lawfulness at the EPO”
As a reaction to the recent disciplinary procedures and resulting decisions of the President to dismiss two elected Staff Representatives and to severely downgrade a third, a call for strike was formally initiated mid-January across the Office. The petitioners mandated an external lawyer to act on their behalf as their interlocutor, but the Office refused to accept this nomination, although they did not provide any legal basis for this. The lawyer therefore proposed to delegate his mandate to the CSC for all further action with regard to any upcoming procedural steps foreseen by the EPO administration. The CSC has informed the Administration that we agreed to act as interlocutor for the strike petitioners.
In a meeting on 24 February, the Staff Representation met the Administration, headed by PD 4.3, to discuss the claims raised in the call for strike. Coincidentally and in parallel to this channel, similar requests to the ones raised by the strike petitioners have been made by the Board 28.
Results of the exchange of views
a. Immediate suspension of the disciplinary measures
The administration merely referred to the option for the disciplined colleagues to file requests for review of the decisions and, if necessary, ultimately address their cases to the ILOAT. They showed no intention to quickly deescalate the current, tense situation by suspending these measures straightaway.
b. Independent review of the disciplinary cases
The Administration asserted to be in full compliance with Office rules and therefore saw no need to comply with this request.
c. Revocation of recent changes to Service Regulations
The Administration – without any substantial discussion on any of the listed reforms – claimed that a social study was underway which would identify defects and deficiencies which could then be worked in collaboration with all stakeholders. Apparently, revocation of any of the reforms is not an option.
d. Use of a Mediator to facilitate negotiations between the management and staff representatives
The Administration commented that “Mediation is a waste of time” and saw no need to engage any external support to resolve the current deadlock.
Conclusion
No meaningful progress has been made during this meeting with regards to the requests as set out in the call for strike. Therefore, a strike ballot will take place on 8 March 2016.
“For the strike ballot” we learned, “the CSC nominated two staff members to overview the process. On the background of key-loggers and other recent past events, the confidentiality of the vote cannot be guaranteed at this stage. The Administration declared that if the turn out was low, this was simply a “sign of lack of support” for the claims.”
“It may seem expected, but such moves mostly serve to alienate the staff and motivate stronger action against the management which strives to prevent basis rights, such as the right to strike. “So there is pressure to vote, not boycott the vote and go on strike in spite of it. This is union-busting again.
“It was declared that the administration saw no necessity,” we learned, “and had no me to run a paper ballot. And again, the SR took note that the simple administrative request made by the CSC to make sure the exercise was meaningful was turned down by the administration. As a general conclusion, the SR assembled expressed their disappointment that the attempt to find common ground had failed and that the organisation of the strike ballot should proceed.”
“This is union-busting again.”Any outsider can see what Battistelli thinks not only of unions but also of democracy. No wonder he's with Sarkozy. Although it may be too early to say anything about Battistelli’s expected departure (whether by resignation of by sacking), one reader pointed to this article and said that “the last passage of the article is the most interesting: ‘Tatsächlich kursiert bereits der Name eines möglichen Nachfolgers an der Amtsspitze, der des deutschen Verwaltungsratsmitglieds Christoph Ernst aus dem Bundesjustizministerium. Battistelli selbst, so ist zu hören, soll das für ausgeschlossen halten. Er sei allerbester Laune, heißt es.’”
“It says that there are already rumours about the next president who’s supposed to be the German representative Christoph Ernst from the federal ministry of justice,” we were told. “This is new rumour and if we add this article to the BR programme one can imagine that there are some forces behind. It is rumoured that there are already 22 delegations in favour of ousting Battistelli. All will be decided probably soon.
“Any outsider can see what Battistelli thinks not only of unions but also of democracy.”“One could say: The sooner the better (for everybody). The longer the thing drags on, the angrier the delegations will be and Battistelli’s conditions will get worse.”
Based on the EPO’s own site, Christoph Ernst was “elected chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee” less than a year ago (epo.org link), so presumably he knows Battistelli’s real salary. Mr. Kongstad knows it too. █
______
* At least one English language paper is writing about Austria and repeats the EPO's latest propaganda (ignoring the real story), plus the German-speaking Austrian press, in addition to few other publications that we cited here before, the latest being the Financial Times (London).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Article: The New Face of Unionbusting
Summary: FFPE-EPO as discussed in an anonymous forum over at IP Kat right now
THE comments at IP Kat, including comments about EPO rumours, have resumed (being an anti-censorship activist, I eventually wrote several E-mails to IP Kat, only after people had told me that IP Kat wasn’t publishing their comments, in effect deleting them). There is a lot of telling/revealing stuff inside some of these comments and we highlight in yellow (see below) what people probably deserve to know about FFPE-EPO (while bearing in mind it’s unverified). We also add some comments about FFPE-EPO, which looks to us like a yellow EPO union, based on a growing mass of evidence.
Oh oh, Sam, now you have signed your pact with the devil. And there is no getting out before the end of Old Nick’s term. Ik heb medelijden met je.
The following article about being a democratic union combining with the President’s desire for transparency and openness should of course mean that they will reveal how many members they have and how many actually voted in favour of signing the MoU. My sources suggest less than 30 for the second one.
Of course, BB does like to dismiss staff opposition to his reforms as being a small minority (which appears to ignore previous overwhelming strike ballots and numerous demonstrations, but never mind…) rather than dealing with the issues. Interesting to see how he portrays the numbers here when he has an agreement with, ahem, a small minority of staff.
And yes there does seem to be a problem via-a-via the open “to all members of staff ” bit. But never mind – his game, his rules. There’s only one person to appeal to and that’s… Doh! Well I didn’t want to join their union anyway.
FFPE does not qualify as a recognisable union under the MoU also because they do not have elected staff representatives. According to Art. 9.2 they should not even be eligible to sign the MoU.
S hould the final days of this regime?
T erminate in chaos for Battistelli’s team
H is support is slipping,and I don’t mean the truss
E ven his top managers are jumping off the bus
L ovely,delictable Josephine has even taken fright
E lizabeth II followed his quote ‘not to knight’
N ext stop the job centre in St Germain-en-Laye
A nd long suffering Eponians live to fight another day
I do not understand how the FFPE-EPO could sign the MoU because they do not have a single elected staff representative, as is clearly required by Article 9.2 of the MoU as a prerequisite for signing.
Also it should be noted that they were set up in order to defend the interests of dutch staff members in The Hague – nothing wrong about that, but not in line with the spirit of Article 7 of the MoU.
A MoU with a “local” union, having only members in The Hague (exactly how many?) might be a pretext for the President to claim that he has reached the goal set by the AC and its Board 28. It is nothing more than a fig leaf, and it also reminds me of Lenin’s words: useful idiots.
Only if the president comes to terms with a Union having about half the staff as members, that he will be able to say mission accomplished. We are very far from this.
Board 28 did also ask for an external enquiry on the charges against SUEPO officials and suspension of the sanctions. Where are we there?
What about the standstill with respect to staffing of DG3? Those are crucial questions which need a quick reply and not some self-laudatory message.
From the statements given in writing by the EPO to Bavarian television it was made clear that the “Investigation Unit” is merely an administrative fact finding unit, hence there is no need to be assisted by a lawyer. May be this could be right, but does certainly not excuse the massive misuse of this unit against staff especially staff representatives.
That family members did not want an enquiry which possibly showed a link between the suicide of their relative and the atmosphere at the EPO, has a very simple explanation. Any subsistence, education allowances, medical coverage would have been severed immediately. Can a wife afford this, especially when there are children?
In the story on Bavarian television excerpts of the interview of VP1 were shown. What is to hold from a “manager” when he says without any hesitation that the Dutch High Court may decide what it wants, it will simply disregard it. He also claims that actions against the head of SUEPO are pure coincidence.
That things had to change at the EPO is not at stake here. But it did not warrant what happened.
@old man: The relevant request by B28 calls specifically for agreement with both unions, actually present in the EPO and names them as well. So one out of two may be a first step, but certainly not enough. The president will most probably say that he made the gesture, one union has signed and the others – the mafia as he called them – have not and it is not his fault. Impressive was, though that there were several reports in the press about this signing and in all of them the size of FFPE Compared to Suepo was commented upon. It looks like the PR gag did not really work as planned…
The agreement with FFPE was predictable from the start of the Union recognition talks. In fact, I predicted it in a comment on this blog at the time.
As sharp-eyed commenters have noticed, FFPE fails two criteria of the agreement, making the so-called “breakthrough” even more absurd. Normally there is also another criterion in Union-employer agreements, namely a minimum percentage of the employees that must be represented by the union (for obvious reasons). Of course it is vastly more than 1%.
The fact that the President is actually ignoring the text of his own MoU in order to enable FFPE to sign it is a laughable sign of his desperation.
FFPE-EPO was set up about 9 years ago with management encouragement, with the hope that it would provide a viable and more tractable alternative to SUEPO. It was accorded facilities, such as its own premises in the EPO, always denied to SUEPO. It never attracted much support, even in The Hague, where some of its policies were specifically targetted at Dutch employees. Since then it has been moribund, if not actually dead.
The management strategy of sponsoring ing a tame union failed then, as it will fail now.
FFPE-EPO did help the EPO in preparing their defense (with the success we know) in front of the Dutch court by submitting them documents which were popping up in the dossier …..
also an interesting post on Techrights on the matter : http://techrights.org/2016/03/03/ffpe-epo-vs-suepo/
FFPE finally a union that supports management
Then a lone voice of pro-Battistelli party line:
Dear all,
Great to read that everybody knows exactly what happened when the FFPE-EPO was founded. There was no support from management, but if you say otherwise of course you are right. The facilities which were granted were minimal, and taken away when those for SUEPO were taken away.
The statutes of the FFPE-EPO do allow staff members from other sites to become a member. Please continue reading the statutes (article 20).
The FFPE-EPO is allowed to sign the MoU, the criteria in article 9 mention “or”. Any examiner knows than that the three criteria are not all required.
A critical reader.
To be rebutted by the following (mostly sarcastically/tongue-in-cheek):
(thank you for your comment. psst, tell any member of FFPE that if they really want staff from other sites to join, the real secret is to have one or two of their officials fired by the President with bogus accusations in kangaroo trials – it works like magics … )
Thanks for enlightening since the Web site page about Membership failed to mention that and Article 3 does not refer to Article 20 (maybe it would be useful to clarify that Article 3 isn’t complete?).
Since you are knowledgeable, perhaps you know:
a) How many members are there in The Hague (working)?
b) How many elsewhere under Article 20?
c) How many retired members?
d) How many members voted to sign the MoU (aiming there was a vote)?
Thanks in advance
Great to see that FFPE has taken the time to inform its members or anybody else why signing a MoU which allows them to send two – 2 – emails per year to all staff it’s really an historical moment – for them, or anybody else.
We shall leave it for readers to decide what’s going on here. We see a lot of the hallmarks of union-busting action by yellow unions (controlled opposition).█
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The ‘danger’ of democracy may become too much for the Unitary Patent Court to survive
Nothing new for Benoît Battistelli and Michel Barnier with their conspiracy to overcome democracy (imposed top-down) and shove UPC idealism down Europe’s throat
Summary: The Unitary Patent Court, a deeply flawed system that almost nobody in Europe even knows anything about, is being negotiated behind closed doors and its leader, the EPO President (for now), may be on borrowed time
JUST as we’re about to learn that Battistelli is history his biggest current ‘project’, the UPC, has patent lawyers panicking a bit, especially those who put all their bets (or eggs) in the UPC basket. Joff Wild of IAM (follow the money and the agenda [1, 2]) speaks for the EPO and the UPC (attributing mere claims of “success” to the UPC), making it two birds with just one stone. Cheerleading for the British government to fall into the UPC trap, i.e. running all over democracy by trying to make UPC happen without any public consultation on the matter, here is what came from the UPC propagandist (Ward) and a colleague [1, 2], only to be met with sceptical comments from those who aren’t patent maximalists, e.g. patent lawyers. “Strange comments indeed about the UK re-joining the UPC after a Brexit,” one person wrote. With context:
Strange comments indeed about the UK re-joining the UPC after a Brexit. I have yet to see an explanation (let alone a convincing one) of how that might work.
My main concerns, however, relate to the divergences in the laws of infringement for the four different categories of patents (national vs. opted out EPs vs. unitary EPs vs. not opted-out EPs). Given Spain’s arguments relating to Article 118 TFEU, judges of the UPC may be reluctant to fix the matter (at least for the latter two categories) by relying upon direct references to the UPCA. Thus, significant problems could be caused by those countries that have ratified the UPCA without amending their national laws. With respect to the laws of infringement, at least France currently falls into that category – and, unless I have missed something significant, Germany looks set to follow suit.
What a fine mess we could be getting into!
“But such salaries are clearly insufficient to attract applicants from the EPO,” wrote another person, “even taking into account the harshness of the working conditions.” They are trying to slowly extinguish national patent offices and courts. The matter of fact is, UPC is anything but a done deal because many barriers remain, including Spain (we wrote a lot about this).
“Things that inherently work against Europe’s interests shouldn’t leap their way into law in spite of democracy.”Some patent lawyers are evidently upset at my stance on this (see what I got last night from one [1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6]), but they only serve to reinforce my views on the UPC when they do this. UPC is good for large corporations (often from abroad), their patent lawyers (usually European), patent trolls, and of course software patents, based on a lot of internationally-renowned people who keep warning about this.
The UPC should go down into the ashtray of history, along with “Community patent” (another name for the same thing, promoted by Michel Barnier, who is close to Battistelli not just in the nationality sense, going back even half a decade ago) and Team Battistelli. Things that inherently work against Europe’s interests shouldn’t leap their way into law in spite of democracy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 6:30 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Y ¿ellos comparan los acuerdos secretos (cuarto oscuro) con la luz del sol?
Sumario: Una mirada acerca de la egoísta servil clase de patentes y como ha cubierto la Corte Unitaria de Patentes ultimamente
LA OEP sigue pretendiendo que todo es color de rosa en la OEP. Es una mentira. Entonces tenemos el lavado legislativo apoyado por la OEP, notablemente la UPC, la cual muchas figuras de alto calibre insisten que es una puerta trasera a las patentes de software en Europa. Annsley ¨AmeriKat¨ Ward, quien ha promovido las patentes de software y la UPC desde hace tiempo (varios años), esta dejando IP Kat por una promotora de la UPC (firma de leyes que incluso se cambió de nombre a UPC para ´negocios´). Otros sitios de abogados de patentes al presente promueven la UPC, la que complicaría las cosas en la economía Europea – para ganancia de los abogados por supuesto (ellos se llenarían de dinero por las disputas). ¿Cuándo los maximalistas de patentes -algunos de los cuales reciben salario de Battistelli – finalmente se darán cuenta que el rey está muerto (como dice el dicho) y paren este desfile con bombos y platillos de PR por la UPC? Toda su ´preparación’es un engaño que uno sólo podría esperar de un país del tercer mundo o una Republica Bananera. No hay comités propios con un amplio espectro de accionistas; usualmente ocurre detras de puertas cerradas y se resume a una conspiración de abogados maquinando hacerse ricos. Están robando la democracia. Esto debe terminar, pero primero – como fue el caso de ACTA, TPP, TTIP y lo demás – el público necesita saber que esto esta sucediéndo en sus narices (al presente esta en secreto, mientras nos arriman este caballo de Troya).
“Esto debe terminar, pero primero – como fue el caso de ACTA, TPP, TTIP y lo demás – el público necesita saber que esto esta sucediéndo en sus narices (al presente permanece en secreto, mientras nos arriman este caballo de Troya).”Todos fuimos una vez dichos que las oficinas de patentes estan en el trabajo/tarea (o negocio) de otorgar patentes, y sólo después de una completa examinación; ahora vemos dentro de la OEP cabildeo, tortura mental, y redes de NEPOTISMO que se extiénden a la UPC. Aquí esta el cabildeo por la UPC de nuevo (a pesar de la reacción), esencialmente promoviéndo un antidemocrático (´robo´ de demorcracia) proceso. La OEP debería avergonzárse de si misma. Ellos encadenan esta pieza promocional de la UPC tan optimísticamente – suficientemente para pretender que la UPC es inevitable (a pesar de la oposición Española, Brexit y lo demás). La ¨Patente Unitaria,¨ dice ¨un sistema unificado de patentes aplicable a traves de toda la Unión Europea – ha estado en desarrollo desde el 2012 y estará despegando pronto¨ (no, realmente no, especialmente ahora que Battistelli esta de salida, allanando el camino para otra clase de reforma). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 7:49 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Un puñado de personas que trabajan para la OEP no son necesariamente ¨unión de trabajadores¨
Sumario: Un rápido repaso a la presente estrategia PR (relaciones públicas) de la OEP y algunos ejemplos de los engañosos reportajes que genera
GRAN parte de anoche la pasé escribiendo a los periodistas acerca de las últimas mentiras de la OEP, que sin duda tratará de engañarlos hoy. Ya conocemos su modo de operación.
Hoy vamos a escribir un montón acerca de respuestas sustantivas de la OEP. No es siempre suficiente señalar que la OEP esta ENGAÑANDO a los periodistas y por ende al público y advertirles acerca de sus representantes. La OEP, sin duda tratará de distraer a los medios del cubrimiento de la Televisión Alemana usando piezas de propaganda que ya refutamos en apuro ayer. [1, 2]. Bueno, ellos hablan acerca de ¨resultados¨ (link de la OEP) e incluso PAGAN por publicaciones de prensa acerca de ello. !Que tal Desperdicio! Sin mencionar el contrato secreto con FTI Consulting…
“Bueno, ellos hablan de” resultados “e incluso pagan por comunicados de prensa sobre él. ¡Qué desperdicio de dinero!”¨Solicitudes y aplicaciones en la @epo.org más altas que nunca el 2015¨, escribió en Twitter, pero no pregunten como los cuentan. Actualmente el equipo PR incluso no lo saben…
Bueno, eso es sólo uno de varios modelos de propaganda. Acerca de otro ya escribimos hace poco (difamar y eliminar a los mensajeros cuando se trata de sus críticos más tenaces) y el principal acerca de las ¨uniones¨.
“La gerencia de la OEP firma tratado de reconocimiento con sindicato de trabajadores,” IAM escribió anoche, “pero no la SUEPO – el sindicato principal de empleados.” – implica un completo desconocimiento de la SUEPO – haciéndolos aparecer como si no existiesen. Buena tactica estan de la manito con un ¨sindicato¨ de cuatro gatos cuando el verdadero ni se le menciona.
Eso es correcto. Según calculos, la SUEPO tiene el doble (sino el triple) de miembros. ¿A quién la OEP esta ENGAÑANDO?
Como WIPR recientemente lo ha puesto, despues de chequear lo que realmente la FFPE-EPO really es:
La FFPE-EPO es una mucho más pequeña unión comparada con la Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), la cual todavía no ha sido reconocida.
De acuerdo con fuentes dentro de las unioness, la FFPE-EPO tiene alrededor de 70 members los cuales trabajan en la oficina de The Hague, mientras que la SUEPO esta estimada tener más de 3,000 miembros en todas las oficinas de la OEP.
Creemos que eso es menos de 70 y públicamente hemos pedido fuentes que nos provean con información para probarlo.
¿Porqué reconocer a un sindicato de 70 empleados y al mismo tiempo ignorar al verdadero de más de 3,000? La respuesta la tienen todos, el la misma tactica Himmleriana de mentir al público acerca de que todo es color de rosa en la OEP ya que los ¨representantes¨ de trabajadores estan en la camita con la gerencia.
¿Recuerden cuando Siemens creó falsas uniones después de un MASIVO escándalo de soborno? Vamos a informar a nuestros lectores de ello en nuestro próximo post.
“¿Recuerden cuando Siemens creó falsas uniones después de un MASIVO escándalo de soborno?”Estamos un poquito desilusionados ver al Register ser el primero en tragar el anzuelo y hacer un artículo acerca de ello (aunque la lengua en la mejilla), notando ¨Los asuntos llegaran a la cabeza en una reunión completa del Consejo Administrativo en Munich más adelente este mes, y los ejecutivos de la OEP claramente esperan utilizar la firma de un memorando de entendimiento con la FFPE-EPO para desviar las críticas.
¨La OEP firma acuerdo con sindicato que no esta atado a ella en una espiral de muerte,¨ escribió The Register en Twitter.
Como alguien lo puso en IP Kat:
The Register publicó una última historia con el memorable sub-título de la ¨rama de olivo pueda venir de una serpiente atontada¨, sugiriendo que la SUEPO no haya estado ansiosa a firmar como habían informado anteriormente. Hay ahora otra historia (como esta aquí) que la FFPE hubiera firmado.
Una foto de alta resolución de Bergot y otros tiranos de la OEP (como Pinocho Battistelli y su bulldog de mano derecha) fue incluida en este artículo.
La OEP esta soltando su última propaganda ya; incluso con este artículo que trata de uniones! Para citar al parrafo final del Register:
¨La OEP ha tomado pasos significativos en los años pasados para modernizar su estructura interna y aumentar su eficiencia, al mismo tiempo que incrementar su calidad de patentes,¨ sostiene. ¨Esto cubre diversas areas de cooperación con estados miembros, la infraestructura IT de la OEP y políticas de derechos humanos. El 2015 resultado anual muestra que esta dando resultados: El número de productos (como busquedas y examinaciones) entregadas por sus examinadores creció un 14% el 2015 a 365,000; y la OEP publicó más de 68,000 patentes otorgadas, un crecimiento del 6 por ciento más que el 20145 y el número más alto que nunca.¨
“Es sólo una distracción, cercana a los puntos tirados a la television Alemana cuando les preguntaron acerca de las violaciones de derechos humanos, abusos contra sus empleados, etc.”Esto son tonterías. No tiene nada que ver con los sindicatos. Es sólo una distracción, cercana a los puntos tirados a la television Alemana cuando les preguntaron acerca de las violaciones de derechos humanos, abusos contra sus empleados, etc.
Hay dos models de la propaganda de la OEP hoy: “resultados” y “uniones”. Los periodistas que hacen su trabajo bien revisarán los asuntos que la OEP les pide REPETIR. Más adelante hoy Techrigths publicará una refutación a todas esas clases de propaganda de la OEP -una acerca de ¨resulatados¨ (falsos) y otra acerca FFPE (no la mismo que se clama). Esta publicación no es una refutación total (la que requiere mostrar material nuevo). Sintonicenos por más… █
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