11.25.15
The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions
Summary: Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli’s private letters — spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it’s very hypocritical a form of spin
THE highly (but shrewdly) misleading management of the EPO, some believe, is wrongly conflating SUEPO with Techrights whenever it suits the agenda, assuming that it’s true at all that Battistelli really pretends SUEPO is against the UPC (this recent letter from "Sun King" Battistelli to Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ says that there is an effort to "prevent the bringing into force of the Unitary Patent"). Just because I personally follow the SUEPO’s page (more regularly than before) does not mean I ever even spoke to anyone from SUEPO. As far as I’m aware, I never spoke to (or corresponded with) anyone from SUEPO. So please disregard the latest spin from the EPO. I do support a lot of what SUEPO is doing, seeing that the concerns raised in their site are legitimate concerns.
“…EPO have concluded that he must be part of the anti-UPC conspiracy and must be crushed using all resources available.”
–Anonymous“Dr. Schestowitz,” one person pointed out in a comment, “has often expressed misgivings about the UPC. Presumably management at the EPO have concluded that he must be part of the anti-UPC conspiracy and must be crushed using all resources available.”
This reminds me of 2006 and 2007 when people wrongly associated this site with the Free Software Foundation (FSF) just because we occasionally cited and agreed with the FSF. We sometimes openly disagree with the FSF. I even had to make it very clear in an article in 2007, having seen some blogs shamelessly perpetuating myths in order to shoot the messenger, thus discrediting the messages.
Techrights was never ever a front for anything or anyone. It never received money, except a few personal donations here in there (amounting, in total, to at most 400 pounds in 9 years, which on average means less than 50 pounds a year). Don’t ever fall to the illusions perpetrated by opponents of our causes. I don’t make any money from this site; it’s operating at ‘a loss’ (as if it’s actually a business) and I work full time in a completely separate field in order to subsidise the site’s hosting (about $1000 per year). There is no hidden motive here, it’s a platform for the expression of personal views. I care dearly about EPO staff these days (mostly technical people) because I see them crushed by non-technical brutes and I simply cannot step aside. It’s a cause I will continue to fight for no matter how much EPO management bullies me. Attempts to silence me have only made me more passionate.
“Is the present VP3, Mr Van der Eijk, still on unlimited sick leave and thus out of function? Is there any information about him?”
–AnonymousSpeaking of causes, we are still hoping to receive information about the status of Van der Eijk. We have asked repeatedly, but nobody got in touch privately or in the comments. In fact, one new comment asks: “Is the present VP3, Mr Van der Eijk, still on unlimited sick leave and thus out of function? Is there any information about him?”
In other comments we find growing concerns about how EPO managers now exploit the media for their own agenda. To quote one person: “What I find incredible is that the EPO continues to conduct its internal affairs on external blogs, in advertorials and in public letters to French politicians. What self-respecting management would be pig-headed enough to get itself into this situation?”
Here is a response in another comment that says:
I think you kind of answered your own question. Only management that is so arrogant, so blinkered by their own brilliance, and so confident in their ability to do anything they like with impunity, that’s the kind of management you’re looking at.
We normal members of staff are perpetually horrified and disgusted by the behaviour of our higher management, and can not believe the total bollocks that they keep coming out with. Every time they do something crass, we think, they can’t do anything more stupid, and then they do. It’s quite incredible really, and would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
We are dealing with ever-increasing targets (+10% and rising), which have no basis in reality, whilst at the same time seeing zero improvement in our tools (apart from the enormous amount of money spent with nothing to show for it).
Finally, says another commenter: “With regard to mgt fighting blog games, the actions of mgt are barely credible and the PR battle is going against them. For a long time they kept a lofty disregard but as the battles became uncomfortable they have signed up with agencies for tidy sums who are clearly trying for reputation mgt using a different tactic. It looks like a last stand with backs to the wall but maybe that’s wishful thinking.”
“Speaking of a cause we can support, SUEPO is chastising the EPO president for his selective ‘transparency’ again (favourable omissions).”If EPO managers were ever to accuse us of working for someone or acting as a messenger of something or someone, that would simply be a despicable act of projection. It’s the EPO that’s doing such things (with Les Échos for example [1, 2, 3]), not us.
Speaking of a cause we can support, SUEPO is chastising the EPO president for his selective ‘transparency’ again (favourable omissions). SUEPO points out “what is missing” and lists that as follows:
- Circular No. 347 Circular on Strikes
- Circular No. 355 Regulations for the Staff Committee elections
- Circular No. 356 Resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee
- Circular No. 364 Implementation of the career system. Minimum qualifications for recruitment, grading on recruitment, promotion and other rewards
- Circular No. 365 General Guidelines on the EPO Competency Framework
- Circular No. 366 General Guidelines on Performance Management
- Circular No. 367 Absences for Health Reasons
According to SUEPO, the above, “as well as the Financial Regulations and the Tender Guidelines, amongst others, are missing. In the interest of potential job applicants and of the public in general, SUEPO calls upon Mr Battistelli to publish the missing parts.”
Better yet, if someone has access to these documents, consider ‘leaking’ them to us (it’s not even a case of civil disobedience because civil servants deserve no secrecy). In the interest of transparency, which Battistelli brags about in his now-infamous blog post, help us host these documents. These documents are in the public interest, they relate to a public body, and they should arguably all be in the public domain. Not only job applicants deserve to see these; the whole of the European Union (and other continent/countries where patent applicants come from) deserve access. From transparency comes accountability. From secrecy comes distrust and abuse. █
“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.”
–Aristotle
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Dr.Guinness said,
November 25, 2015 at 8:27 am
I have seen a Question in IPKat November 24: “Is the present VP3, Mr Van der Eijk, still on unlimited sick leave and thus out of function? Is there any information about him?”(@Kilroy was here.) Kilroy writes further: ¨Does Marc Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands have contact with VP3 Van der Eijk to get relevant and important information? It seems to me, but maybe I am wrong, that Mr.Van der Eijk is a strong character for whom it is impossible to be ¨his masters voice¨.Moreover BB can not be Van der Eijk`s master. I hope strongly that Mr.Van der Eijk is not forgotten by the Dutch government.¨ There is one answer to Kilroy`s question namely from Anonymous who said: @Kilroy Mr. Van der Eijk is back. When it is true that he is back we will soon hear from him and/or from BB. BB is also short for Brigitte Bardot who is also of french nationality as Benoît. From her I have better memories.
Further FOSS Patents of Tuesday November 24 2015 supports you and Techrights very positive. ¨Shame on the European Patent Office for its legal threats against TechRights author Dr. Roy Schestowitz¨