06.18.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Posten en Europa, Patentes at 7:51 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Michael Fröhlich hace el trabajo sucio de Battistelli subástando e interfiriéndo con las políticas públicas
Crédito por Foto: Nordic Patent
Sumario: La toma de los medios, eventos(o paneles) para la promoción de la UPC y el lavado de reputación de la EPO debería sobresáltarnos, por que muestar la persistencia de la arrogancia de Battistelli (quién se cree arriba de la ley y que tiene un cheque en blanco)
La EPO hace que la USPTO luzca muy bien, por que a diferencia de la EPO, la USPTO no compra a los medios o cabildea al gobierno, al menos no hasta despues de su servicio Oficial (recuérden lo que el néfasto David Kappos esta haciéndo en la actualidad).
“La mala conducta de los periódistas por causa de ganancias parece haberse convertido en aceptable.”
Hace una semana escribimos más de la mitad de una docena de artículos acerca de la distorsión/corrupción de los medios de comunicación europeos por parte de la EPO, y hasta cierto punto incluso los estadounidenses, Indios y así sucesivamente. La mala conducta de los periódistas por causa de ganancias parece haberse convertido en aceptable. Esta mañana, la EPO se vincula a las piezas de hojaldre que cuestan millones de euros en generar (pérdida total del presupuesto), como este artículo de Alemania y piezas poco profundas, incluyendo la del gobierno frances y los medios de comunicación franceses, algunos de los cuales son “socios de los medios” de la EPO (produciéndo muchas piezas de hojaldre este año, y que se han auto-censurado el año pasado). Tal vez cuando la contratación de agencias de relaciones públicas para apoyarse en los medios de comunicación no es suficiente un solo intenta comprar casi literalmente, los medios de comunicación. No hay nada en la EPO ServRegs contra de todo eso.
Basado en la actividad de Twitter de la EPO esta mañana, la EPO sigue cabildeándo por la UPC. ¿No hay separación entre la política y el examen? Para citar NPI (Nórdic Patent): “Michael Fröhlich de EPO discutir algunos de los detalles prácticos de la UPC en PatTech” (el año pasado de Grant Philpott estaba haciendo algo similar).
“Basado en la actividad de Twitter de la EPO esta mañana, la EPO sigue cabildeándo por la UPC.”
El vocero de la EPO IAM, también se une al cabildeo. Joff Wild acaba de decir: “Desde una perspectiva de propiedad intelectual, las consecuencias inmediatas de una votación LEAVE estarán en el futuro del tribunal de patentes unificado y el proyecto mediante una patente unitaria. Efectivamente, esto pospone hasta que el Reino Unido se aparte formalmente de la UE. En IPBC Global de la semana pasada se habló del Reino Unido ratifique el acuerdo, incluso después de haber votado para dejar de Unión, sobre la base de que es un tratado intergubernamental no de la UE uno; el pensamiento es que una vez que el Reino Unido fue de manera que se encontraría para mantenerlo allí – un Euro-fudge clásico, en otras palabras. Cuanto más pienso en eso, sin embargo, parece el escenario menos probable.”
El artículo es otro ejemplo del sermoneo de IAM. Bajo el título “Es hora de que los titulares de PI para empezar a considerar seriamente la posibilidad de Brexit,” suena más como instrucciones informativas. Un nuevo comentario en IP Kat habla de la idea errónea de que la EPO es un órgano de la UE:
La mayoría de los ciudadanos europeos toman distancia de las organizaciones/instituciones europeas.
No hace mucho tiempo, vimos un voto negativo en los Países Bajos.
El referéndum sobre la “Ley del Acuerdo de Asociación entre la Unión Europea y Ucrania” terminó con 61% de los electores que voten en contra de ella y el 38,2% de los electores que voten por ella.
El verdadero objetivo del referéndum holandés era atacar la unidad de Europa.
Hay que tener en cuenta que la cobertura de la prensa sobre el escándalo de EPO era enorme en los Países Bajos. Unas semanas antes del referéndum, todos los ciudadanos holandeses vieron por televisión el vicepresidente EPO no respetar los derechos fundamentales y denigrar la justicia holandesa.
Por supuesto, algunos expertos explican que la EPO no es una institución europea. Pero la realidad es que 99,99% de los ciudadanos de la UE cree que la Oficina Europea de Patentes es la segunda mayor institución europea de la Unión Europea.
Ahora bien, en el Reino Unido, vemos que el referéndum sobre la UE. Las encuestas recientes han indicado que el público británico está a favor de una retirada.
En Francia y en otros países europeos, los ciudadanos perciben cada vez más las organizaciones / instituciones europeas como corrupto, arrogante, por encima de las leyes. La Oficina Europea de Patentes es el ejemplo perfecto de tal mal comportamiento.
Creo que si queremos sobrevivir a la UE, las organizaciones / instituciones europeas tienen que hacer el primer paso, mejorar su propia imagen y se comportan correctamente.
Battistelli rápidamente se ha convertido una amenaza a la UE en su totalidad. Incluso crítica al establisment Europeo.
En relación a otro comentario sugiriéndo si sería posible deshacerce de Battistelli. Los siguiéntes comentarios siguieron:
No, no hay límites en cuanto a la ServRegs, si los representantes votan a favor, aunque en contra de sus leyes nacionales y las obligaciones, y, posiblemente, en contra de la intrest de su país. Atilo puede decidir que era ilegal, pero luego los cambios que ya se han puesto en marcha durante unos diez años, y en el ínterin, posiblemente, incluso reforzado. Y sobre todo Atilo solamente decide si el procedimiento de adopción norma se ha seguido.
Y con respecto a Battistelli: seguro de que puede ser derrotado en las elecciones. Artículo 11 (4) EPC. (2) el IPP (Protocolo sobre las inmunidades y Provileges) El artículo 19 establece las normas cuando la inmunidad del presidente puede ser levantada por el aire acondicionado. Pero como todos sabemos, el aire acondicionado, la mayoría de los gobiernos (incluyendo el país anfitrión Holanda), y en especial de alta dirección actual no deseo de aplicar las disposiciones de la PPI, aunque el PPI es una parte integral de la EPC (artículos 8 y 164 (1) EPC). Como tal, todo el EPC no debe llevarse a cabo sin el PPI está aplicando, y el PPI incluye “la organización cooperará en todo momento con las autoridades competentes de los Estados Contradting con el fin de [...] garantizar la observancia de los reglamentos de policía y reglamentos relativos a la salud, la inspección del trabajo, y para evitar cualquier abuso de los privilegios, inmunidades y facilidades previstos en este protocolo “(Art. 20 (1) PPI).
Con todo el respeto, la EPO no carece de cerebros legales – incluyendo contratados externamente abogados y miembros de la boa. La ley simplemente no existe en la EPO debido a la inmunidad y los Estados miembros preocupaciones no infringir la misma. Con o sin razón.
Me sorprende Julian Assange y Osama bin Laden no acamparann en la EPO con él que es tan intocable. Todos los que la comida es buenísima, saunas, spas, gimnasios, campos de polo baratos y caballos. ¿Hemos identificado finalmente el hogar de Lord Lucan?
El Sr. Assange nunca hubiera estado seguro en Eponia ya que el tírano en jefe lo retrataría como “Nazi armado” o algo por el estilo; es fácil to enfrentarse a los que dicen la verdad de esa manera.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes at 7:02 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Battistelli no tolera a los que saca a luz las verdades ni a los reporteros, basado en sus últimas (rumoreadas) acciones, las que definitivamente demostraríán que debería ser despedido inmediatamente
Battistelli está de nuevo fuera de carril. Su campaña de difamación en contra de un juezdebe aparentemente permanecer un secreto celosamente guardado, a menos de que él controle a los medios y emita piezas defamatórias a pocas semansas de firmar aquel infame (y secreto) contrato con FTI Consulting. Cubrimos aquello el año pasado.
“Las noticias del caso disciplinario”, nos dijo una fuente, “que comenzó hoy en la OEP: nuestras fuentes dicen que el Sr. Battistelli envió un mensaje amenador a la Cámara de Recursos que trata el caso, en el sentido de que no deben dejar al público estar presente durante la audiencia. La EBA dice que tomar esto muy en serio y que ha remitido la amenaza del presidente para el presidente del Consejo de Administración”. El demente Battistelli quiere una corte marcial a su favor en el caso.
“…Mr. Battistelli envió un mensaje amenador a la Cámara de Recursos que trata el caso, en el sentido de que no deben dejar al público estar presente durante la audiencia.”
–Anónimo
Como hicimos notar la semana pasada. Una sala relativamente pequeña fue escogida para acoger el caso a propósito (para desanimar la participación del público).
¿Esfinalmente (ojalá) lo último que pueda llevar al despido de Battistelli en 2 semanas?? Recuérden como él también matoneó a los delegados (al Consejo Administrativo). Eso fué el año pasado. ¿Cuánto más de esto puede tolerar el Sr. Kongstad? Como la Sala 28 lo puso, ahora hay una “crisis”y la Organización entera, no sólo la Oficina (ambas son llamadas la EPO), tienen el riesgo de colapsar.
“Como la Sala 28 lo puso, ahora hay una “crisis” y la Organización entera, no sólo la Oficina (ambas son llamadas la EPO), tienen el riesgo de colapsar.”
El día de hoy, esta mañana temprano, de hecho, tenemos los siguientes fragmentos de información acerca de la audiencia (o el llamado “juicio”): “Las juntas de EPO de juicio de apelación comenzó hace unos +/- y 40 minutos. Inicio de un procedimiento contra el Sr. X. En la sala 109, una de las habitaciones más pequeñas. [Por lo que pasaron a una habitación aún más pequeña, no la sala 131, que había sido reservada] Hubo espacio para unas veinte personas. Al parecer nadie de la prensa! Sólo un blogger presente! Palabra es el Consejo de Administración está dividido en tres facciones. Una vuelta de la delegación suiza que quiere tratar de modificar las propuestas para conseguir algo aceptable. Un (no identificada) que quiere rechazar de plano. Y los comedores de la muerte. Voldemort no permitirá modificación, por lo que es probable que sean de dos en el final. ‘Salas de recurso de primera instancia en Munich contra un juez, cuyo “crimen” parece ser haber dicho la verdad sobre la EPO …”
La cuestión principal en esta etapa es, ¿tuvo cualquiera de los asistentes un dispositivo de grabación y, si es así, que esta persona comparta el audio con la prensa/bloggers? Si sólo un blogger estuvo presente, entonces va a ser una fácil de caza de brujas para castigar a esa persona. Esto es probablemente lo Battistelli y sus chacales quieren. También es bastante probable que la razón una habitación muy pequeña quedó asignado en el minuto 90, a pesar de que la habitación 131 (que también no es tan grande) estuviesen disponibles/reservados.
Eponia es un lugar loco Battistelli desea hacerlo aún más insano..
“¿AMBA será la próxima en reciber mensajes/cartas amenazadoras?”
“Seguramente,” escribió un comentador esta mañana o anoche, “deben haber algunos límites a lo que pueda ser añadido a las regulaciónes de servicios, prohibiendo servicio después de empleo sinc compensación es muy astuto para mí. Seguramente también debe haber alguna manerade de procesar a Battistelli o levantar su inmunidad.”
“Mientras tanto, en la OEP,” dijo otro comentario, “AMBA han producido otra crítica educada pero mordaz: http://amba-epo.org/”
Cubrimos esto el otro dia. ¿AMBA será la próxima en reciber mensajes/cartas amenazadoras?
Actualización: Nos enteramos “El presidente ha escrito a la junta”, y dijo que el público no debe estar presente. Pero sí por la tarde. El público fué excluido por la mañana”.
Esto en cuanto a un “juicio” justo (o audiencia). ¿Cuál es el temor de Battistelli? Para la mayoría de la gente es una pregunta retórica.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Corporate agenda at all costs, even is that means stomping on the rule of law
The golden rule: the law of rule, not the rule of law
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) gets chastised for its gross abuse of the law and receives flak for even breaking its own rules, in another desperate effort to give Battistelli whatever he wants, even when he cannot lawfully have it
THE EPO‘s North Korean standards of 'justice' are putting everyone off, both inside and outside the Office. Even the media has begun speaking about it, in spite of the risk of bans (EPO management — like North Korea's regime — resorts to site-wide censorship of news sites that don't repeat its party line). No wonder top examiners are leaving. Even some top managers are leaving. It’s quite an avalanche which Battistelli has kick-started and does not know how to stop. Battistelli “is doing all the wrong moves,” one insider/reader told us, “shooting himself in the foot. [...] he’s so full of himself that he doesn’t care about the outside world, but he still has two years left, which is a lot of time” (enough time to destroy what’s left of the EPO ‘brand’).
A lot of online discussion has appeared in recent days, much of it in the form of comments about the so-called ‘trial’ against a judge, as previously covered in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. This article strives to summarise some of the better comments and shed light on how people — even people from inside the Office — view Battistelli’s gross subversion of justice. It is mostly self-explanatory although there are refutation attempts (e.g. that Battistelli did not issue a threat) which we need to rebut.
Let us begin with the following informal summary of what happened last Tuesday:
DG3 disciplinary case: decision from the Enlarged board of appeals EBoA
- The Enlarged board of Appeal has a public Oral Proceeding in the DG3 disciplinary case. From some prior information, it became obvious that the President had found it necessary to send a long threatening letter to the EBoA.
- Despite the pressure, the hearing was public. During the public part, Mr. Kongstad, the Chairman of the Administrative Council, was asked whether the Council distanced itself from the allegedly “threatening letter” (sic!). Since the answer received was not considered satisfactory, the Enlarged Board announced (according to IP Kat) the EBoA could not in the circumstances pursue the procedure, which accordingly was terminated without the EBA proposing removal from office of the respondent.
- Clearly this courageous decision will have consequences and will feed the debate on the independence of Board of Appeals, topic in discussion in the Reform proposal (CA/43/16), and which has been abundantly been criticised by AMBA, the Association of the Members of the BoA. Clearly a lot more is at stake than the personal case: how could the European public believe and trust the BoAs absolute judiciary independence when, according to the “court’s” own perception, that independence is not unambiguously ensured?
- As far as the Disciplinary case is concerned, it means that unless the case is referred for the FOURTH time to the EBoA, the suspension and sanctions against [the] DG3 [judge] should be removed at the next session of the AC. But… [...] at the EPO, so the weirdest things are possible.
When asked whether the ‘trial’ was definitely over one person with inside knowledge told us: “I don’t know but from the letter I assume that it’s postponed and not definitely closed. Battistelli may try another time and the longer this drags on the worse it is for him but reemploying the judge doesn’t seem to be an option.”
This seems like a case of forever uncertainty (not knowing what will happen), until the judge’s term in the Board reaches the end. In fact, “probably this will be the tactic but I would imagine Battistelli still trying” (to fire him).
“The Administrative Council is complicit,” told us this person, “because they voted to prolong the suspensions in general to 2 years, which is scandalous [...] it’s shameful but nobody want to deal with an institution above the law [...] difficult legal situation” (the EPO's management has already gloated about ignoring the highest court at The Hague).
One person asked a few days ago: “Does anybody know what regulations apply at the EPO?”
Well, the EPO’s management insists that it’s above the law and Battistelli breaks his own rules, so does that matter? Here is the comment in full. It’s about surveillance:
Under EU data protection law (Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001) covert surveillance measures have to be approved by a “prior checking procedure”:
“In cases where the risks to your fundamental rights are high, the institution concerned is obliged to assess the implications of that surveillance on privacy and data protection (also known as an impact assessment). This impact assessment must then be submitted to the EDPS for prior checking i.e. before the surveillance becomes operational.”
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Factsheets/Factsheet_4_EN.pdf
Does anybody know what regulations apply at the EPO ?
Is such retroactive rubber-stamping permitted ?
One response to this was as follows:
In addition to that Bulgarian judges appear to be well versed in the ramifications of covert surveillance operations:
http://sofiaglobe.com/2016/01/15/bulgaria-former-court-chief-gets-suspended-sentence-in-eavesdropping-trial/
The Bulgarian Judges Association seems to understand a thing or two about the “separation of powers” doctrine:
“Judges Association Urges Politicians Not to Jeopardize Law-Based State”
http://www.bta.bg/en/c/DF/id/1015331?PageSpeed=noscript
The names of those involved, Kathrin Klett and Anna Dimitrova, were disclosed as follows:
One should keep in mind that the EBoA in this case comprised two external legal members (Kathrin Klett (CH) and Anna Dimitrova (BG))
(see http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2016/etc/se1/p2.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_23_1/15_and_Art_23_2/15).
They are national judges of their respective countries and it can be assumed that they are well prepared to discern if the letter of the president represented a threat to the board or not.
Here is one person pointing out that three members of the Investigative Unit (it’s not much bigger than that) were summoned, presumably because their ‘evidence’ was illegally collected and/or made up:
Interesting to read that the EBA had invited three (!) members of the Investigation Unit as witnesses to its hearing. Both the chairman of the AC and the president of the EPO must have immediately understood this meant that the EBA would not simply endorse the alleged pieces of evidence put forward against the accused judge, but make an issue also of the way these have been obtained.
Although an invitation to hear witnesses must have been issued largely in advance of the hearing, and put to the president´s attention by his legal staff – who happens to also represent the AC in the procedure (!!) – the president waited for the very last day to send his explosive letter.
This is pretty like launching a bomb on a moving train.
But why did the procedure so direly need to be derailed? And why did the chairman of the AC deliberately not defuse the bomb?
“If the President thinks,” added one person somewhat sarcastically, “that the behavior of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is unlawful, then he should perhaps go to the German courts to get help in this matter.”
Battistelli would never go to a national court like the German courts because that would expose him to all sorts of scrutiny and Hell. Battistelli prefers to keep everything inside the bubble of Eponia, where he is king, judge, jury, accuser, executioner and so on.
“Kongstad was behind the leaked Board 28 communication expressing extreme frustration at Battistelli,” one person pointed out in relation to this leak which we published 4 months ago. Here is the comment in full:
I’m not normally one to see a conspiracy where a cock-up adequately explains events, but:
The AC has now tried three times to instigate proceedings to remove the Board member. Each time they have screwed up such that the proceedings could not continue. They are surely by now well aware of the standards of evidence and argument which will be required to persuade the EBOA to make a recommendation of dismissal, and yet each time they have failed to even get their case off the ground far enough to discuss substantive matters. To misquote Wilde: to screw up one attempt may be regarded as a misfortune. To screw up two may be regarded as careless. To screw up three…?
At first this level of incompetence seems hardly to be believable. Having failed twice now, surely they should have gone in with a watertight approach on the third attempt if they were serious?
Well – what if they’re not seriously trying to remove the Board of Appeal member? Recall that Mr Kongstad was behind the leaked Board 28 communication expressing extreme frustration at Battistelli. Maybe the larger AC players, having lost patience with BB but unable to remove him due to his grip on the smaller members, have decided deliberately to undermine the credibility of their own case to remove Battistelli by other means.
So here we have the EBOA asking Kongstad to distance himself from BB’s threats. Kongstad fails to do so – preserving whatever impression of loyalty to BB may remain. But in doing so, he torpedoes the proceedings against the Board of Appeal member, in a manner which drags BB’s already-soiled reputation further into the mire. Sure, it also makes Kongstad look bad at first glance – but the major damage is to Battistelli. Hey presto, an opportunity for Kongstad to persuade the rest of the AC that “regardless of the merits of the case”, they must reluctantly come to a decision to expel BB for the sake of the reputation of the Office…
Even if the smaller members vote in sufficient numbers to save Battistelli, the loss of support of the bigger members should surely be inevitable (if they have any sense of decency). Devoid of the support of DE, CH, FR, NL, maybe GB, surely his authority is drained and maybe the big players are then banking on the idea that he can either be brought to heel, removed with a final push at a later date once he fails to comply with them again, or persuaded to fall on his sword.
In other words, Kongstad avoids any public statement either against Battistelli, or in favour of the suspended Board member. He appears to remain loyal or neutral to the last, while at the same time ensuring that the proceedings fail in a manner designed to cause maximum embarrassment to BB.
It would be no crazier than anything else we’ve seen from the EPO lately.
Well, to be frank, nobody should assume that the EPO’s management will behave in accordance or adherence to its own rules, let alone national or international laws. Eponia is basically a rogue monarchy.
Here is another bunch of comments regarding whether this constitutes a threat or not (violation of Battistelli’s own Code of Conduct), without actually seeing the letter that was received from Battistelli and then passed to Mr. Kongstad:
Not a threat to declare an action by EPO employees unlawful? That is a very serious threat, because the EBA members, being EPO employees, would then disobey the statutes and could be accused of not acting in the interest of the office. You know what that means: investigation unit and sanctions, perhaps even dismissal. I do call that a threat.
Do not forget that under Article 10(2)(h) EPC the President may propose disciplinary action to the Administrative Council with regard to employees referred to in Article 11(3) (the members of the Boards of Appeal).
Is the potential “threat” becoming clearer ?
Here is the part which raises the possibility that Battistelli made his threat in an effort to hide his goons’ illegal activity, in the same way the FBI and USDOJ often do this in the United States (when Parallel Construction cannot be used to mask the illegal surveillance):
The picture that is emerging here is that one of the aims of the President was to prevent public discussion about the covert surveillance measures.
Does anybody know what regulations cover the use of these measures at the EPO ?
Obviously the EPO is outside the scope of the EU data protection law such as Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001.
Does it have any regulation to cover this matter or is the use of covert surveillance at the EPO completely unregulated ?
Can anybody help on this ?
Justice at the EPO and even outside of it (in independent branches of the Organisation) has become a farce:
I think you illustrate what I was saying. Article 10(2)(h) EPC existed for 30+ years without the Boards feeling unduly threatened by it.
However, the current relations between the Boards and the President are so fragile that they do now feel threatened, even when no explicit threat is made.
Here is a response to the above comment:
How can you claim that no explicit threat was made if you haven’t seen the contents of the letter ?
As far as is known the President expressed the view that it would be “unlawful” to hold a public hearing.
Thus if the Board held a public hearing it would – according to the President’s view – have committed an unlawful act. Or to use the favorite Eponian terminology these days – the members would have been guilty of “misconduct”. And everybody inside the EPO knows what that means. Since December 2015 Board members can be suspended for a minimum of 24 months on a proposal from the President.
Under these circumstances who could blame the Board for requesting clarification from THEIR appointing authority (the Council) to which the President is also subordinate (or supposed to be)?
It is OBVIOUS that the onus was on the Admin Council to clarify the matter and to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY whether or not it shared the President’s view about the “unlawful” nature of a public hearing.
If the Council did share the President’s view then it would be likely to follow any proposal that he made under Article 10(2)(h) EPC.
If it did not share the President’s view then the Board had no reason to feel threatened.
The Council Chair should have given a clear and unambiguous answer to this question and it was his failure to do so that resulted in the termination of the proceedings.
PS: The safeguard of Article 34(2) of the Service Regulations has also existed for Staff Reps. and their nominees for 30+ years: “The fact of of performing such duties shall in no way be prejudicial to the person concerned.”
It was respected (more or less) by all previous Presidents who kept their staff rep bashing activities within the bounds of reason.
That was until the current Pres decided to ride roughshod over it and “prosecute” staff reps and their nominees on trumped-up charges of “misconduct”.
So the nervousness of the Enlarged Board members is very understandable.
After all they are dealing with a person who once told them to their faces “In my opinion you are not judges !”
Now it seems that someone has finally had the courage to tell him “On s’en fout de votre opinion, Monsieur Battistelli”.
Well, based on information we got, it is indeed fair to call it a threatening letter, especially given Battistelli’s history of witch-hunting people (even by making up serious allegations and ‘dirt’).
As the following commenter put it, the “fear is of course fuelled by what the President has done in the past, and by other, real threats that he has made to the Boards.” Here is the comment in full:
All we know (from the accused BoA member’s lawyer) is that the President’s letter used the word “unlawful”. You seem to acknowledge that.
But we have not been told of any actual explicit threat. As far as we know, he didn’t actually say “If you hold these proceedings in public, I will do XXX”. Everything else that you describe is just fear of what the President might do.
That fear is of course fuelled by what the President has done in the past, and by other, real threats that he has made to the Boards. That is the reason for the fragile relations to which I referred. It is the reason why the Boards are nervous. It is the reason why the independence of the Boards is a big issue.
I said all of this in my previous post. You are not saying anything which contradicts it.
The debate over whether there was a threat or not carried on:
I think there is a slight misunderstanding among commenters about what is meant by “threat” in this case. Yes, individual members of the EBoA who are EPO insiders (some were external persons) could indeed consider the President’s letter personally threatening. But I think they meant that the President’s interference was a threat to the integrity of the proceedings, by attempting to forbid the public hearing and by refusing to allow the EPO employees called as witnesses to testify. No fair hearing could be possible in such circumstances.
I guess the issue was not merely whether the members of the EBA themselves felt directly threatened in their job by the intervention of the president. Also the respondent (accused member of the boards) and the public at large had to be absolutely confident that the judges in charge would conduct the procedure and decide freely and in full independence, rather than acting as BB´s puppets. The AC actually is the sole authority which could have given this guarantee in the circumstances, but it failed to do so despite having been offered several chances, apparently.
As a somewhat sarcastic response to the above consider this:
You mean, like the Disciplinary Committee which examined the cases of the three Staff Representatives? Certainly, if they felt threatened and under pressure from Battistelli, they could turn to their appointing authority which is … oh, is Battistelli.
Freely and in full Independece! Urrah!
And in response to the sarcasm:
I like that.
Actually, I shall add it at the end of my grants to dispel the impression in the public that I’m granting only to reach Battistelli’s targets.
I shall remove the “Urrah”, though – it doesn’t fit the code of conduct.
“Barbi” (a frequent poster) made the following good point:
If there were no threats in that letter, BB will not pass up on the opportunity to penalise the EBA for groundlesly failing in ist duty to deliver the requested dismissal for the judge. So that, if he does not request a penalty for the EBA at the next AC, it will mean that the EBA can prove that threats were there in the letter.
The “consequences of doing something that Battistelli alleges is “unlawful” are very clear to every EPO employee,” pointed out the following person:
There’s a huge difference between writing in a letter that the procedure is “unlawful” and actually providing legal arguments in support of that statement – arguments that the EBoA would have certainly discussed and admitted or rejected, depending on their merit – and merely alleging that the procedure is “unlawful”.
As someone noticed above, the consequences of doing something that Battistelli alleges is “unlawful” are very clear to every EPO employee – weapons and nazi memorabilia will be found in your office.
It sure seems like Battistelli has accomplished the unthinkable. He managed to make everyone (even managers) distrust him. He keeps some of them complicit by dangling Euros, but at the end of the day everyone knows that he controls people by fear (or terror). How ironic it is that he keeps exploiting terrorist events to paint himself as a sympathetic victim.
Battistelli has basically helped ‘prove’ that today’s EPO offers no notion of justice (this is essential/fundamental in a system which revolves around a patent justice system), just horrible libel against those who try to uphold justice. As one person put it the other day: “Thank you Mr. Battistelli: you probably have dispelled in the public at large the last doubts that the dismissal and degradation of the three Staff Representatives has been conducted in a fair and independent way.”
There are quite a few comments about this over at The Register as well, in response to an article about Battistelli’s attacks on the boards.
“Surely someone has the power to fire him,” one person wrote. “A good article would explain what is necessary to dismiss him or if it isn’t possible report why not. I’ve read umpteen ElReg article about Battistelli but can’t recall any mention. It reminds of Katrina Percy, chief executive of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust who refuses to resign despite a number of damming reports. The fact that both of them are refusing to go confirms they need to go.”
“I’d say surely someone has that power,” responded another person. “He’s just very very good at sucking those particular balls/ballettes so that he won’t get fired. With that kind of behaviour he should be fired, that’s what is certain. And those of you familiar with Futurama know with what he should be fired and to where.”
“In theory he can be fired by the Administrative Council which appointed him,” another person pointed out. “But since he comes from their ranks, they will protect him as one of their own just as they have done so far. Especially the Chair of the AC Kongstad who negotiated Battistelli’s secret contract.
“Yes that’s right a contract so secret that not even the ordinary members of the appointing body know what is in it. Only the Chairman has seen it.
“And don’t imagine that voting for BREXIT will help you. The EPO Is not an EU institution. Even after a BREXIT, the UK will remain a member of the EPO.”
Here is another (longer) comment from there:
A comment over on IPKat may shed some light on this point:
=== When the computers in the public – public – area of the Office were put under control, there was no request to the Data Protection Officer. The request was made only after the guy was caught doing whatever he was doing.
=== From the article Welcome to EPOnia, the strange land of European patents that is outside the law:
A strange letter from the head of the EPO’s Investigative Unit to the organisation’s internal data protection officer asked whether the spying described above “would have been authorised”—implying the request was being made after the fact. Also curious is the handwritten authorisation on the document, which is dated December 3, 2014—exactly when the Board of Appeals member was suspended for “alleged dissemination of material which was, as was also alleged, defamatory.”
=== Which means that the data collected from the public computers were obtained illegally.
They cannot be used. Had the witnesses of the IU confirmed this, in a public proceedings, the case would have crumbled. So, the President barred them because their deposition could have helped the defendant.
Here is a less serious comment about Battistelli:
Mr. Battistelli sounds like a candidate for an award we used to have in the US, whereby worthy individuals were recognized for their unique contributions, arrayed in ceremonial finery and dispatched on a Victory Tour.
The colloquialism was “Tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail”.
One recipient was heard to remark, “If it wasn’t for the honor of the thing, I think I’d rather walk.”
But surely your tumbrels aren’t all gone?
As another person put it: “If he was appointed then surely there is a way to get rid of him? An extreme method would be to tell him he’s fired and send security guards in to escort him off the premises. Why can’t this be done?”
A cynic might think that Battistelli hired 6 bodybuards (grossly overpriced) to protect him from firing (as well as protect his bulldog and Bergot) inside Eponia where police is not allowed without his prior approval. His bulldog is not even attending court sessions he's summoned for, perhaps thinking that Zagreb is like Eponia and the law is not obligatory.
One person notes: “in the most recent articles about this nut-case, is who he is answerable to – surely *someone* is able to fire him, he’s not a head of state.”
“Apparently he is,” it’s noted, “effectively.”
Lastly, writes one person, “[a]s far as I can see, that ship has long sailed,” quoting the original author as saying: “It is not known why Battistelli is so insistent on the appeals board hearings being held in private, or whether the appeals board is pushing for them to be held in public, but many suspect that what comes out in the course of the proceedings could be damaging to the president’s standing.”
One of our readers who’s familiar with the whole situation is “quite skeptical” that Battistelli is on his way out. “There was a moment at the beginning of last year when I thought Battistelli could be deposed,” said this reader, “but now I can’t see a majority in the Administrative Council.
“Battistelli can buy a lot of the representatives and the ones of the big countries are not that decided to get rid of him.”
We wrote about this before. It is outrageous and it serves to show that the notion of justice is outlandish and foreign to the EPO, whereas cronyism if not bribes is the ‘norm’. █
“Ask the partner to give you heads up on customer situations – bribe them!”
–Steve Winfield, Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Some people vote with their feet, not just in the streets
Summary: Patent quality at the European Patent Office is being abandoned under Battistelli’s regime (in the name of so-called ‘production’) and “highly qualified A4s leave the Office,” according to a source of ours
EARLIER this week there was a spontaneous protest at the EPO. Staff went out in protest and passionately demonstrated in the streets of Germany. Whereas we have published photos from protests in The Hague and in Munich a few days before that (a scheduled protest, not a spontaneous one for the aforementioned reasons), we still have no photos from the spontaneous protest, but here are some details:
Staff unrest:
- despite being organised for a second time in less than a week in MUNICH, between 1000 and 1200 EPO colleagues spontaneously demonstrated in front of the EPO building on Monday and in Berlin [the following morning]. In both sites resolutions have been adopted requesting the following:
o “to stop the repeated, egregious abuses of power by Mr Battistelli, and
o to reinstall Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver in full, pending an independent investigation into the disciplinary and other sanctions imposed by Mr Battistelli on Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver, and on other staff representatives.“
None of this has happened. Every demand, even from the Administrative Council (which can in theory fire Battistelli as it should), falls on Battistelli’s deaf ears. This isn’t an indication of thick skin (watch him lose his mind when criticised) but megalomania. He has come to believe he is above the law and nobody can tell him what to do, not even the supervisory board. This kind of Hubris is unheard of in much of Europe, even in Cecilia Malmström’s notorious department.
It recently came to our attention that with or without Battistelli leaving, there seems to be infighting in Team Battistelli (cracks in the ‘cult’) and the most valuable workers of the Office are leaving [1, 2, 3, 4], including top managers. Someone shared some numbers with us.
“It recently came to our attention that with or without Battistelli leaving, there seems to be infighting in Team Battistelli (cracks in the ‘cult’) and the most valuable workers of the Office are leaving, including top managers.”Surely, if the Office lost all workers except Team Battistelli, that would leave the Office in disarray. It would get the message across, but it’s definitely not ideal as it makes the EPO, which Battistelli has put at existential risk, effectively defunct. What we’re seeing right now is not just profound decline in patent quality but also examiners. Now that “the pension reform is upon us,” told us one person (this is expected next year), “that will lead to a lot of people leaving the office [...] one would need honest people at the top and this is hard in an institution where people are selected for their willingness to serve the top management [...] the thing is that the young will feel pressured to produce much from the very beginning (which is already happening) [...] they also have short-term contracts.”
As we shall show in later posts, Team Battistelli uses searches as yardsticks, not actual quality. They treat people like robots. Patent “quality will not be the same,” the person told us, “especially if the highly qualified A4s leave the office [...] I’ve seen some names on the retirement lists and I know them as less than 60 and top examiners” (that’s about 1% of examiners, but they’re the “top examiners”, not some arbitrary new starters). They are very much necessary, but “they leave anyway,” we are told. Patent “quality drop is also not very visible because there aren’t so many oppositions anyway,” we were told, “probably about 4% [...] and dealt with by UPC” (if that ever becomes a reality at all, in which case the appeals professionals will get crushed).
“I’ve seen some names on the retirement lists and I know them as less than 60 and top examiners…”
–AnonymousThe person added: “it wouldn’t surprise me to see Battistelli jumping from EPO to UPC, especially if the Socialists lose the elections and Sarko comes to power” (Sarkozy and Battistelli are politically connected and there’s precedence at FIFA with Michel Platini).
“I can’t say there’s much hope,” we got old, “but it’s our duty to stand up for the right thing [...] for me the worst thing is not the financial loss but his nepotism that starts the whole avalanche.”
It does not help when Battistelli chooses to bring over, into a Vice-President position, a man who faces many criminal charges in his home country (where the alleged crime reportedly even led to suicide). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The ‘Unitary’ patent will quite possibly end up like ‘EU’ patent or ‘Community’ patent, i.e. a failed project that never quite got off the ground
Has it sunk yet? Multinational corporations won’t quit without a fight.
Summary: The UPC might be derailed — not just delayed — before it even gets started, based on reluctant admissions not just from Benoît Battistelli himself but also the EPO’s latest statement (issued in response to WIPR’s inquiry)
Yesterday we wrote about the UPC’s latest news, namely Benoît Battistelli's admission that the UPC can soon be derailed, perhaps much to the chagrin of Team Battistelli but the delight of most EPO workers, especially those who deal with appeals. Appeasing multinational titans at the expense of Europe as a whole isn’t the original goal of the EPO, or at least oughtn’t be.
Joining the voice of Benoît Battistelli for ‘damage control’ are now his PR drones:
The European Patent Office (EPO) has told WIPR that the unitary patent system could be delayed if the UK votes to leave the EU on June 23.
EPO president Benoît Battistelli spoke about the upcoming EU referendum vote in the UK.
“In case of a Brexit vote it is not clear what happens, and the implementation of the unitary patent system could be delayed,” he said.
“The strategy du jour is pretending that UPC is inevitable (and act as such, e.g. by advertising jobs and setting up courts in the UK), but that’s just a Clintonite approach where you declare victory prematurely in order to induce defeatism (or surrender) among the opposition.”The (Benoît Battistelli’s) EPO mouthpiece (PR team) is creating a parallel reality where, if Battistelli says “delayed” about the UPC for example, it might as well mean demolished, as it has been ‘delayed’ for many years now (it used to be called other things and it never quite took off, even when unity or harmony in the EU was far better). The strategy du jour is pretending that UPC is inevitable (and act as such, e.g. by advertising jobs and setting up courts in the UK), but that’s just a Clintonite approach where you declare victory prematurely in order to induce defeatism (or surrender) among the opposition. It’s an abhorrent if not abusive strategy.
Regarding the EPO’s PR, they are in full denial mode. It’s all about creating an illusion of invincibility and might, even when there’s none. It’s about pretending that Battistelli’s “relationships are excellent” (to quote his ludicrous remarks to Dutch/European media earlier this year) when they’re utterly terrible and all the staff (most managers included) dislike him with a passion, except perhaps the cronies whom he brought with him, mostly from France (we refer to them as “Team Battistelli” — a term that recently grew feet). Speaking of Team Battistelli, or Battistelli’s “circle” as SUEPO typically alludes to it, we recently became aware of what seems like cracks in it. “The rumour is that Ciaran McGinley left because a clash with Elodie Bergot,” one person told us about the wife of Battistelli’s old INPI minion. “He was a president´s minion, too, but was also regarded as somebody who stood up for his people. He wanted to get a bonus for one of his staff who had disappeared from a bonus list and went to Elodie Bergot who refused. Since [neither] the VP2 nor anybody else supported him he left, but I cannot believe that somebody like him would leave in a fit.” VP2 is Alberto Casado Cerviño, whom we wrote about before in relation to some ‘funny business’ [1, 2, 3]. “He must’ve been annoyed by other things,” our source told us about McGinley.
“The EPO’s management forgot what it’s supposed to actually do and It’ll run out of money if this carries on (stakeholders will realise that EPO patents rapidly lose value).”But don’t worry. Everything is fine, insists the EPO’s PR team and media mouthpieces. These people are still milking their own very expensive festival from over a week ago (up to 7,000,000 Euros are getting wasted on a few hours of silly ceremony which is essentially Battistelli lobbying). Today’s EPO is paying for lots of spurious nonsensical activities which have nothing whatsoever to do with patent examination. The EPO’s management forgot what it’s supposed to actually do and It’ll run out of money if this carries on (stakeholders will realise that EPO patents rapidly lose value). How many of the several millions of Euros were paid to media companies and so-called ‘artists’ which try to dress up a lobbying event as “science”? Waste and abuse of biblical proportions is what it is (an effort to change public perception), but sooner or later everyone will know what really became of the EPO. The more people know, the angrier they get and the more likely they are to get involved. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.17.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Buying the media and even panels to mislead the public about UPC still not enough?
Like “Unitary patent” or “EU patent” or “Community patent”: Not unitary, not for the EU, not for the community, or whatever euphemism they’re using this year in corruptible (for sale) media
Summary: The corporate coup which Benoît Battistelli is spearheading at the expense of the EPO’s very existence has gone way too far (and become far too expensive), especially now that he publicly admits that it might never actually materialise and his misguided vision might never happen
THE Frenchman Benoît Battistelli is destroying the EPO. It’s no wonder so many people, especially his own employees (including some in management), want to get rid of him but don’t know how. He has become an existential risk to the EPO, for reasons we shall cover in the rest of the weekend (due to lack of time). Some believe that he wants to be the head of the UPC, potentially a replacement of many of the functions which exist presently (but not for much longer) at the EPO. Under Battistelli, for example, patent quality has been severely harmed. He destroys the entire appeals process (to hide this decline in quality) which might be gone soon, unless he’s sacked or steps down. ‘Production’ the ENA way doesn’t take into account quality, just short-term profit, which is being thrown away at propaganda and festivals which glorify Battistelli. This might be expected from sports and celebrities (like FIFA), but not from an inherently scientific institution like the EPO.
“This might be expected from sports and celebrities (like FIFA), but not from an inherently scientific institution like the EPO.”Earlier this month we showed how Battistelli had wasted MILLIONS of Euros* to generate puff pieces such as this new one from India (no research/investigation required, just copy-pasting the PR). James Nurton, who ‘interviewed’ Battistelli several months ago (softball questions), now does a puff piece about the whitewashing/lobbying event, demonstrating yet again that journalism, especially ‘professional’ journalism (i.e. salaried), is driven by high agenda (like interests of subscribers) rather than reality. UPC pushers were given the same platform yesterday, presumably under the assumption that people who would profit from the UPC know it best. In comments at The Register “BREXIT” is alluded to as a possible solution, one day after The Register published a piece chastising the FT (Financial Times) for its UPC puff piece, essentially advancing a gateway to patent trolls, software patents and everything that’s rogue in the megacorporations-leaning USPTO. Battistelli has apparently been paying British media (Financial Times) for UPC propaganda under the guise of events coverage.
The level of disgust at this stage is very high and it’s directed not only at Team Battistelli but also the journalists whom Battistelli essentially passed money to (can we say “bribed”?) in order for them to become his mouthpieces.
“The level of disgust at this stage is very high and it’s directed not only at Team Battistelli but also the journalists whom Battistelli essentially passed money to (can we say “bribed”?) in order for them to become his mouthpieces.”Yesterday we found patent lawyers (i.e. people who can profit from the chaos UPC would generate) offering ‘analysis’ (advocacy) of the UPC [1, 2, 3]. But Europe is more than just “IP [sic] lawyers,” to use the term from WIPR‘s headline. The interests of Europe and of patent examiners (or scientists for that matter) are very different; sometimes they’re direct opposites.
One particular article stood out from the rest yesterday. It’s titled “Brexit would scupper Europe’s unitary patent plans, says EPO president” and it helps confirm that we were all along right about UPC not being a certainty (the same tactics of self-fulfilling prophecies were also used when it was called “EU patent” or “Community patent”). To quote the article:
A Brexit victory would totally ruin the timeline for the long-planned EU unitary patent due to come into force in early 2017, the president of the European Patent Office has told Ars.
“If the ‘out’ vote wins then we have a big question mark—nobody knows what will happen,” Benoît Battistelli said.
The so-called unitary patent is expected to offer dramatic savings over the traditional European patent as there will be no need to approach each country individually. In addition, a single European Union patent court will be established. “The Unitary Patent Court (UPC) is needed because if you have a unitary patent, you need a unified litigation system. It should not be possible that a court in France would decide on a case in the UK, or vice versa,” said Battistelli.
“So the countries involved have decided through a treaty—not an EU regulation—to create a UPC. I think it is not well understood what a step forward this will be, because for the first time there will be an international court that will be competent for litigation between private parties,” he added.
As before, we urge patent examiners and other people who realise Battistelli ‘fronts’ for multinational giants (recipients of special treatment) to antagonise the UPC by all means possible. This can help get Battistelli thrown out of the helm, with or without the Administrative Council doing its job. Contact politicians regarding the UPC and explain to them why their nation must not tolerate (and certainly not ratify) the UPC, just as it oughtn’t touch the TTIP and TPP with a 10-foot bargepole. █
_______
* Batttistelli is estimated to have spent up to 7 MILLION Euros on a few hours of silly festival. Imagine the waste and all the other things that could be done with that money.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA