11.16.16
Amid Scapegoating, Union-Shaming and Gagging by Battistelli, SUEPO’s Prunier Provides More Details on Union Busting at the EPO
The naked emperor continues to show his true colours
Summary: The authoritarian boss of the EPO, who tried to prevent his victims from speaking out about how they had been abused by him (using revocation of their pension as a threat), causes even greater anger within the Office, stirring up fresh conversations about how to remove him
THE EPO has gotten so bad that we’ve lost sight of the USPTO. The EPO is now an international scandal and we have begun approaching the world’s leading media, which ought to cover it like it covered FIFA, VW (Dieselgate), and so on.
In response to defamatory union-shaming by Battistelli (echoing/mirroring what he so stridently did to a judge) and some utterly tasteless comment from an anonymous coward, Prunier has just published another comment to clarify the following points:
As the person directly concerned, I am responding to anonymous who posted on Sunday, 13 November 2016 at 07:30:00 GMT
1) I deny having ever harassed or defamed anyone (nor have my other fellow staff reps or SUEPO officials unfairly sanctioned or to be sanctioned, since several are still targeted).
2) The alleged victim did NOT file a complaint against me. The person who filed it was a very close associate (and protégée) of Mr Battistelli.
3) The staff representatives in the Disciplinary Committee have not found that I was guilty of harassment. That finding was 3:2, only by management side.
It is therefore quite inappropriate for you to hide behind anonymity to give credit to Battistelli’s smear campaign without being in possession of any relevant information.
The easiest solution for the public to assess the truth vs. story-telling, is for Mr Battistelli to lift the confidentiality he imposes on me and I will gladly publish all the documents.
Other new comments rightly express worry that nothing can stop Battistelli because the system is broken, partly because he himself broke it. One person wrote:
How does a “President of the Boards of Appeal” fit this paragraph of Article 10 EPC?
Uneasily I would say.
The fact is that the position of the “President of the Boards of Appeal” doesn’t exist under the terms of the primary law of the EPC.
It has been created under secondary legislation at the level of the Implementing Regulations.
In CA/D 6/16 the Admin Council decreed that Rule 12 should be replaced by the following new Rules 12a, b, c and d:
Rule 12a – Organisation and management of the Boards of Appeal Unit and President of the Boards of Appeal
Rule 12b – Presidium of the Boards of Appeal and business distribution scheme for the Boards of Appeal
Rule 12c – Boards of Appeal Committee and procedure for adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Rule 12d – Appointment and re-appointment of the members, including the Chairmen, of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of AppealThese new Rules entered into force on 1 July 2016.
They still don’t appear to have been published in the official online version of the Implementing Regulations.But who cares about such fine points of detail nowadays … ????
Another person wrote:
“Battistelli is not doing what the Council wants. I asked what the Council can do and apparently the Council cannot do much because of the 3/4 of the votes clause. I said Battistelli just needs 10 countries to stay forever and follow his plans and nobody raised a credible objection. …
So let us imagine that Battistelli stays another few years to continue his plans. The Council cannot do much because of this blocking minority. What would the effect be? What would the European Patent system look like in, say, 2 to 4 years?”Not so simple.
Without a 3/4 majority Batty cannot be replaced and can sit tight.
However, as shown in October a simple majority (i.e. 50%+) would suffice to prevent him from “following his plans”.
Thus, if a simple majority of the states decided to oppose him they could block any further action on his part.Such a scenario would result in a stalemate situation rather than BB simply continuing his plans.
He would continue to sit on his throne but wouldn’t be able to enact any further “reforms”.
Not sure if we are heading in that direction but it is one possibility.
“I guess that the money the the European Patent Office funnels into the National Patent Offices is enough a reason to keep the ministers shut,” the following comment said; it resembles the hypothesis that delegates have their votes 'bought' by Battistelli. Here is what the comment said:
“He would continue to sit on his throne but wouldn’t be able to enact any further “reforms”.
No further “reforms” certainly, but he still would be able to fire people at will to put the AC under pressure and in an embarrassing situation – as it did with Prunier when the AC denied him the last “reforms” he had submitted.
It’s absolutely incomprehensible that no single European minister responsible for IP is intervening in a situation like this when the president of an international organization that is supposed to be under their control is totally going rogue …
I guess that the money the the European Patent Office funnels into the National Patent Offices is enough a reason to keep the ministers shut …
Disgusting.
In the coming days or weeks we are going to leak yet more documents and we are going to share some of them with leading journalists. It’s time for the whole world to see what happened to the EPO under the leadership of this naked emperor. As always, more leaks are very much welcome and encouraged, at the very least to help Battistelli with his goal of “transparency” (with which comes accountability). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA