03.10.16
Posted in America, Patents at 12:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at patent news from the United States, focusing primarily on patent trolls or software patents (the trolls’ weapon of choice)
Trolls’ Antics Spreading
“ServiceNow (NOW) stock rose Tuesday,” said this article, “with word out that it might be able to settle some of its patent litigation with privately held BMC Software, avoiding a trial scheduled to start Friday.”
“The cost of going to trial (plus all the appeals which typically ensue and moreover the duration which casts doubt and uncertainty) is greater than just settling.”This is what very often happens when it comes to software patents. The cost of going to trial (plus all the appeals which typically ensue and moreover the duration which casts doubt and uncertainty) is greater than just settling. That’s what gave rise to a lot of what’s now known as “patent trolls”, even though large companies with actual products do the same thing (our next post will deal with Microsoft, which even created a troll-like entity called “Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC”).
Patent Reform in the US
“In his Patently-O Patent Law Journal essay,” says this post, “James Daily reports the results of his investigation into the signatories to these open letters [regarding patent reform that focuses on patent trolls]. He finds, inter alia, that the signatories of the second letter are (1) more likely to be donors to the Republican Party and (2) more likely to be registered patent attorneys.”
“Republicans often stand for (or support) what’s good for large corporations, which also get represented by patent lawyers (hence they ‘trickle down’ money to them, at the expense of everybody else).”This is expected, but receiving a reminder that reinforces these expectation can be helpful. Republicans often stand for (or support) what’s good for large corporations, which also get represented by patent lawyers (hence they ‘trickle down’ money to them, at the expense of everybody else).
IAM Doesn’t Know What “Trolls” Are (Follow the Money)
Why do we still see so many patent trolls in the US? Why does the EPO’s management want to bring them over to Europe with the UPC? And why do friends of the EPO’s management (sites like IAM) take money to promote the UPC and to soften the image of trolls? Follow the money. It’s not hard.
“It’s pretty obvious that the Eastern District of Texas is friendly to trolls.”Consider this new article from friends of software patents who are also receiving money from patent trolls (and whose “Editor in chief” does not know how much money is being paid to by sponsors). Whenever they write about patent trolls they manage to not even to mention the word “troll” (because it might offend IAM’s parent company, as it’s paid by trolls). Here’s the latest example which says that “as Congress waits, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is set to tackle one of the most controversial aspects of patent infringement cases in the US – the thorny topic of venue shopping. Almost all sides of the reform debate can agree that it is not healthy in any legal system for a disproportionately large number of cases in any field to be heard by just one court and for one judge to hear so many. Last year, according to Lex Machina, 2,540 patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas – 43.6% of the total suits brought in the US. Of those, 1,686 were filed with Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Regardless of Judge Gilstrap’s judicial skills, that lack of plurality does not paint the US patent system in a good light.”
Amazingly, the article does not say a thing about trolls. Astonishingly, they miss the strong correlation between the Eastern District of Texas, patent trolls, and even software patents.
“U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to rehear arguments from Pi-Net International Inc., which saw its Federal Circuit appeal in a case against JPMorgan dismissed after it used formatting tricks to hide the fact the appeal brief was too long.”
–Law 360“Of course,” they added, “if the CAFC or Congress does severely stymie patent plaintiffs’ ability to bring cases in East Texas we might finally see whether patent owners flocked there not because the courts gave them such an easy hearing, but because it’s the only place in which they have been able to get a fair hearing.”
It’s pretty obvious that the Eastern District of Texas is friendly to trolls. It even openly advertises this, as covered widely in the press just weeks ago. How could IAM miss this crucial fact?
Fear of PTAB
The Intellectual Property Owners Association, which is essentially a lobbying group of the super-rich (not just any holder of patents), is trying to demolish previous reforms that introduced a court known for eliminating a lot of software patents, especially post-Alice. There is also the article “Fed. Circ.’s [CAFC] Embrace Of PTAB To Fuel More AIA Reviews”, which related to what we wrote two days ago.
Patents Keeping the Price of Ink Sky-High
To understand the wider impact of patent maximalism look no further than the Lexmark story, which continues to be the subject of lawyers’ analyses, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4] in recent days.
Too Much Work? Inadmissible!
We couldn’t help but notice this new article which says that the “U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to rehear arguments from Pi-Net International Inc., which saw its Federal Circuit appeal in a case against JPMorgan dismissed after it used formatting tricks to hide the fact the appeal brief was too long.”
A lot can be said about this, either about the cheeky lawyers who disguised the length of the brief or the court which judges based on the number of words (rather than merit). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
An antidemocratic process which harms Europeans is discussed/constructed behind closed doors
Summary: Unitary (or Unified) Patent Court in the EU is still just wishful thinking, but those who are eager to see it materialising (the patent microcosm working for personal gain) would have us believe it’ll be here “real soon now” (same thing they have been saying for years whilst endlessly renaming this unpopular effort)
The EPO‘s lobbying in Brussels was mentioned here earlier this year because there seems to be increased emphasis on that. The tyrant who runs the EPO doesn’t give a damn about democracy and he wishes to impose the UPC regime (totally antidemocratic) on the whole of Europe in one fell swoop. Billionaires and their lawyers are looking forward to that.
Based on yesterday’s live coverage of “International Patent Forum 2016″, “Stefan Luginbuehl of the EPO gives an update on the Unitary Patent, the EPO’s new responsibilities and the fees.”
“The tyrant who runs the EPO doesn’t give a damn about democracy and he wishes to impose the UPC regime (totally antidemocratic) on the whole of Europe in one fell swoop. “The EPO’s boosters (who rub Battistelli’s back) keep insisting that the EPO is not pushing for or touching policy pertaining to the UPC. Either they’re delusional, not paying attention, or simply lying. We have already given nearly a dozen examples where EPO senior staff goes lobbying for the UPC. Battistelli is doing it all the time. A later update from MIP’s live coverage said that “Stefan Luginbuehl of the EPO gives an update on the Unitary Patent, the EPO…”
Can we quit pretending that the EPO is just taking the role of examining and granting patents? It’s now somewhat of a self-serving monster striving to improve ‘results’ even if that requires doctoring them a little. All hail King Battistelli and kneel to his mighty globalist policy! Since when does an international body override European policymakers and influence them?
“Since when does an international body override European policymakers and influence them?”According to this legal analysis republished in The Register this morning: “Companies will be able to opt out an “unlimited” number of their EU patents from the jurisdiction of the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) at one time, it has been learned.”
Well, let’s pretend that the UPC is unstoppable and only a matter of time. What we have here are self-fulfilling prophecies, especially in light of Brexit (UK exiting the EU) prospects, Spain’s opposition to the UPC, and many other factors, including the end of the Battistelli era.
Watch today’s UPC piece from IAM and recall that the EPO's PR firm pays for IAM's promotion of the UPC. This piece parrots the bogus EPO numbers (including from China) and says: “As this blog has noted, the latest statistics from the European Patent Office (EPO) show that this firm has plenty of company among its Chinese peers, and that the EPO filing route is attracting increased interest from the country. Applications from China jumped 22% year-on-year, which combined with greater interest from the US, helped to account for most of the 4.8% overall growth in the EPO’s application figure. Huawei came in fourth among corporate applicants to the office, with rival ZTE the only other Chinese firm among the top 25. No surprise, then, that China’s applications were skewed towards digital communication and computer technology; even if, overall, medical technology led the way in both absolute and percentage growth terms.”
“There is a lot of high-budget propaganda going on right now and guess who pays the bill? Secret EPO budget.”As a patent attorney, Joeri Beetz, noted a week ago, many of these patents are only written in Chinese. Should every European now learn Mandarin? Or hire lawyers who speak Mandarin? To read many thousands of patents and properly study them? What the heck is being compared here anyway? In order to promote the UPC even more, weakly tackling a common point that’s often raised against the UPC, IAM also published “End of prohibition on double patenting” (cross posted). UPC propaganda money that was given to IAM seems to have been well spent. It’s not too hard to see who they work for. Watch how Patently-O is already led to believe the fantasies of Battistelli, who keeps telling the media that UPC is just months away. To quote Patently-O‘s latest: “Within the next few months, the Preparatory Committee will wrap-up its activities and we will then await ratification by the member nations. The UPC Agreement was signed by 25 EU Member States. However, it must be ratified by at least 13 states, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom – That process is likely to be concluded this summer as well. If that schedule goes forward then the UPC may be open-for-business for the start of 2017.”
Well, this is wishful thinking. There are several barriers which we wrote about before, the latest of which is Brexit (there are even greater barriers).
The UK-IPO has apparently just released “Proposed Changes to the Patents Rules”. As per IP Copy blog: “The UKIPO has released a consultation on proposed changes to the Patents Rules. The deadline for making comments is 22 April 2016 (at 11:45pm). Eleven different changes are proposed which range from the helpful (providing a notice of intention to grant) to the nerdier end (removing the need to paper forms in triplicate) of the spectrum.”
How many people are willing to bet that UK-IPO will continue to be the British patent authority going well into 2017? The EPO’s bogus numbers would have us believe otherwise; one person who has patents at the UK-IPO and later attempted to apply for patents at the EPO is extremely furious and considers taking legal action against the EPO (albeit it’s hardly possible) for what can easily be interpreted as gross misconduct (we saw documents). We are going to write about this in the future as it’s currently the subject of investigation at European authorities.
The bottom line is, don’t believe the EPO and so-called ‘news’ sites that work for the EPO when they speak about the UPC. They keep making false predictions, hoping that gullible readers will assume inevitability and naively accept these predictions as fact. There is a lot of high-budget propaganda going on right now and guess who pays the bill? Secret EPO budget. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Patents at 10:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Monopolising mass surveillance using software patents as weapons which guard its ‘turf’ (walled gardens)
Summary: Facebook is being hailed and ridiculed for patents on software that basically data-mines the words of a population under mass surveillance
AT the start of this year we wrote about Facebook's neo-colonialist plot in India (one among many abuses), where poverty is being exploited to digitally imprison people. An article published on the 23rd of February also reminded us of software patents which are verboten in India.
“Readers should remember that Facebook applies for software patents, buys software patents, and uses them to attack companies.”India is increasingly thriving as a software powerhouse and the article’s headline was “The new Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions are a big win for FOSS in India!”
To quote the article, “India is one of the few countries which permits patenting of software – a monopolization that has only benefited established corporations and largely throttled innovation in the software industry, worldwide. CIS has consistently advocated against patentablity of software and in a major victory last week, software patenting in India died a little more. This happened via the newly issued Guidelines for the Examination of Computer Related Inventions, which introduces a new test to restrict software patenting – in essence the same legal test that CIS had been proposing since 2010. This post highlights the new test and other noteworthy changes in the Guidelines.”
Several days ago it became apparent from the media that Facebook is still patenting and also creating hype around software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Among the headlines we have “Facebook Patents Software To Track and Identify New Slang Terms” and “Facebook patents new software that creates a slang dictionary”.
“Facebook is a very big part of many problems, one of which is software patents.”These are software patents. Some in the press treat them like a good thing, which is foolish. Readers should remember that Facebook applies for software patents, buys software patents, and uses them to attack companies. Facebook is an aggressive company which is still patenting software and sometimes using these patents to sue much small companies.
“Like many big tech companies,” said the article above, “Facebook files a lot of patents. But its latest one, which was granted in February, is raising a few eyebrows; it’s a piece of software that scans the social media site for emerging terms and stores them in a “social glossary.””
Well, anyone who still uses (or being used by) Facebook ought to reconsider. Facebook is a very big part of many problems, one of which is software patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The end of heartless leadership
Summary: As Battistelli is expected to be on his way out (some sources tell us ejection is likely to happen in June), there is no denying that big changes are afoot and we take stock of some
We previously published hundreds of articles about the European Patent Office, which had threatened to sue us for writing about its many abuses. Two of the latest developments we might as well want to repeat/highlight/cover in depth. These developments are as follows:
- About 60% of the EPO’s staff voted for a strike two days ago. They are fed up with the management’s abuses. There are strikes and protests imminent.
- The President is probably about to get sacked (or pressured to resign), mostly for his abuses against the course of (in)justice and union-busting.
A lot of this is being covered in German and in Dutch (among other languages). It’s in newspapers, television programs, and radio. These articles or broadcasts also increasingly cover the role of EPO abuses in staff suicides, which soared under Battistelli.
“A more diplomatic president would have heeded the warnings earlier: when in a hole it’s usually best to stop digging.”
–AnonymousNot so much coverage about these matters can be found in the UK, possibly due to language barriers and the distance from the patent offices/headquarters, which are all in central Europe (continental). The Register, WIPR and a few IP-centric news sites are being the exception when it comes to coverage in the English language (there is only one writer at The Register who’s keeping abreast of EPO developments, so the other coverage mostly targets lawyers, who are a niche audience).
“The EPO said that the door is still open to SUEPO to sign the MOU,” said this very recent article from WIPR. So the wolf said his door is open to sheep. This is merely pretense of amicability or peace. How many people are willing to fall for it? Lesser informed journalists might interpret this as ‘evidence’ of these problems having been resolved, or SUEPO being the vicious, merciless party.
According to this new article from MIP (English site for lawyers):
The Administrative Council also discussed the envisaged structural reform of the Boards of Appeal which may lead to a relocation of the Boards of Appeal to premises not shared with other departments of the EPO, possibly even remote from Munich, such as in Berlin or Vienna. Concrete proposals could be decided upon by the Administrative Council as early as at its March meeting.
The headline of the article says “Organisational concerns in spite of performance gains,” but it shouldn’t be taking at face value the so-called 'results' that the EPO keeps repeating even in Twitter this morning and afternoon [1, 2, 3], despite these so-called ‘results’ being deficient and increasingly the subject of ridicule. See what Francisco Moreno, whom we recently mentioned here, wrote about it last week:
Filings & Applications
Churras & Merinas
Pears & Apples
Platos & Tazas
#EPOresults
People who work in this area increasingly realise that the EPO isn’t telling the full story, just as it’s lying to journalists and lying to staff. When I leaked a document which the EPO later admitted was authentic the EPO’s Twitter account told angry lawyers that I was “wrong” (for merely showing a document!). A week later the EPO threatened to sue me.
We were rather amused this morning to see that someone in IP Kat doubting the legitimacy of the leaked documents we published last night. Well, we have the originals (definitely authentic) but published the text only in order to protect the source. Here is one response posted in relation to that:
This seems to show what will be the line of defense of battistelli will be: disciplinary authority is my prerogative, there is no legal basis for an external/independent review.
This guy does not seem to understand the pressure under which the AC – and the ministers at home (see the answer of Haas in the BR report) – find itself as a result of the intense media coverage about the EPO.
He may get away with his stupid arguments, but this will make the things only worse because the question will continue to linger:
if the disciplinary action were taken following the law – as they continue to repeat -, WHY IS IT THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT ANYBODY TO HAVE A LOOK AT IT?
If battistelli does not agree with the requests of the AC, he may always file an appeal at the ILO …
Here is a response to the above:
He won’t need to do that.
Look at Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Council:
“Article 18 – Specific provisions concerning the review and appeal procedures for Council decisions
(1) The President of the European Patent Office shall draft an opinion for the Council on the request for review.
(2) Taking into account the opinion referred to in paragraph 1, the Council, in accordance with Article 109 of the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European
(a) shall decide whether the request for review is receivable and, if so,
(b) shall take a decision on the merits of the request for review.”
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/F44EA2A833862CD9C1257B1A00322E35/$File/CAD12010_en.pdf
In other words all he has to do is to file a request for review.
He then gets to draft the opinion on the basis of which the Council decides on his request.
Lastly, here is a comment which says Battistelli “has dug himself into a hole” and that “when in a hole it’s usually best to stop digging.”
The President has dug himself into a hole, despite warnings and instructions to the contrary from the AC, and now he can’t get out of it without presenting SUEPO a major victory. A more diplomatic president would have heeded the warnings earlier: when in a hole it’s usually best to stop digging.
This presents the AC with a problem. What’s needed at the present time is conciliation, not a major victory for one side or the other. But the President is making conciliation impossible.
Whether the PR team admits it or not (it is paid to lie to or mislead people), the EPO is in a state of transition right now. There’s turmoil that only a major overhaul can end. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour, Videos at 9:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An analysis of a presentation from Dr. Ernst, who is rumoured to be among the possible options for EPO leadership after Battistelli, who is stuck deep in or under the mud right now
TECHRIGHTS is interested in knowing whether the EPO will adhere to the EPC and refrain from granting software patents, which software professionals don’t want anyway (they already have copyrights).
Currently, the only person who is rumoured to be a contender to become Battistelli’s replacement is Dr. Ernst, whom we believed to have been among the opposition to Battistelli in the last meeting of the Administrative Council (December 2015).
“What is interesting is not his presentation but that the roundtable was chaired by Julia Reda.”
–Anonymous“I’ve been looking a little more,” told us a reader (FOSS person), “and still not finding anything aside from neutral, political statements. Some are even issued through his lawyer. I did spot the following though. What is interesting is not his presentation but that the roundtable was chaired by Julia Reda. I do not know her but I do know that she’s been doing excellent work in the parliament. Maybe she is one of the people that could say what position Ernst has.”
We asked her yesterday, but have not yet received a response. A few months ago she warned that TPP would bring software patents to Europe and she knows the perils of software patents, being more technically literate than a lot of politicians out there.
Our reader found this video and asked about Dr. Ernst: “Is this him?”
“At 18:00 he seems to dodge naming software patents.”
–AnonymousWell, it sure looks like it. He mentioned the EPC too.
“The part about patents starts at 12:15 to 19:00 and he talks about EPC,” our reader says. “At 18:00 he seems to dodge naming software patents. At about 20:00 he begins about copyright.”
Here is the full video, which can be streamed non-sequentially.
When Battistelli leaves the Office and goes back to Corsica where he comes from (or rejoin his political allies who are Sarkozy-connected) it’ll be interesting to see if the EPO removes the ban on Techrights. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.09.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image credit: Joeri Beetz
Summary: What the EPO’s PR team, which is leaning on the media along with FTI Consulting (which enjoys a secret budget of nearly 80,000 euros per month), tells us about EPO “results” is basically just a big lie, or propaganda hinged on misleading statistics
THE abuses by the EPO’s management are rarely being justified, except being painted as a necessary consequence of improving productivity, output, results, or something along these lines. People who insist on justice and human rights are being portrayed as obstructions to productivity and an obstacle on the road to necessary reform. But anyone who’s smart enough to work as a patent examiner at the EPO knows that it’s poppycock. I did review papers for international journals in the past and I know that rushed jobs under pressure yield nothing but inaccurate, sloppy, worthless work. Poor papers can fall through the net and an unhappy peer reviewer can wrongly reject decent papers or lose track of them.
Over the past year we repeatedly mentioned (several times in fact) the reasons why the EPO’s “results” are just worthless lies. We alluded to that, based on numerous sources, both external and internal. It’s just propaganda, as we even noted last year. The numbers don’t mean a thing. Or alternatively, they don’t mean what gullible journalist are (mis)led to believe.
“This also includes PCT applications filed in China, that will never be translated into any European language.”
–Joeri BeetzWell, thankfully enough patent lawyers took note of Joeri Beetz’s article, which can be found here. In his own words: “In the first week of March, just like in any other year, the EPO has published its patent filing statistics for the previous year. Just like in any other year, the main goal is to show that the EPO has become even more important. Although the number of direct EP filings has been more or less constant over the last decade (+2.7% in 2015, similar level to 2005), a year over year growth scenario is presented by adding all PCT applications. With ‘all’, I don’t mean just the PCT applications filed at the EPO or entering the European phase (fees paid, examination requested, …), but really ‘all’. This also includes PCT applications filed in China, that will never be translated into any European language. Of last year’s growth of 4,500 applications (+1.6%), 2,821 are PCT (+1.3%) and 1,679 direct EP (+2.8%). [...] Other interesting numbers from the WIPO: Last year the EPO as PCT Receiving Office, received 7.2% less applications and the EPO was selected as International Searching Authority in 11.1% less applications. With a decreasing amount of total PCT applications (-9.4%), this is of course not a surprise. It is, however, interesting to see that the use of the EPO as ISA goes down faster than the number of filed PCT applications (both total and with the EPO as rO). Apparently, the EPO is becoming less popular as a searching authority. EP regional entries for PCT applications grew 6% this year (EPO count). It has to be taken into account that regional entries represent PCT applications that were already filed about one and a half year before. Therefore this number does not only reflect the preferences of applicants in 2015, but also in the two or three years before.”
That’s just the gist of it. There are even more angles from which to tackle this and people who actually work inside the EPO told us that these numbers are misleading. Nevertheless, the EPO’s Twitter account is reposting and recycling them several times per day (since the 3/3 propaganda day). Here is the British media mindlessly parroting what the EPO's PR team probably told them to write (they also lie to journalists and staff). Corporate lobbyists’ media did the same by issuing/reposting a press release (as we noted before, the EPO actually paid for press releases to spread its misleading “results” propaganda).
“Apparently, the EPO is becoming less popular as a searching authority.”
–Joeri BeetzRelaying EPO “results” propaganda in Switzerland or in Swiss media too is a ‘thing’, based on these two new examples [1, 2]. Did authors actually fact-check? of course they didn’t. They don’t behave like journalists but more like EPO writers ‘on loan’. This is why we’re seeing a lot of the media unquestionably passing around the claims.
By the way, the reason Switzerland has many patents per capita isn’t what the EPO wants us to believe. Patents are indicative of wealth, not innovation, as those with money are patenting stuff spsringly, unlike those who actually implement stuff, like Indian programmers (where software patents are aptly verboten).
“EPO insiders, one of whom has access to such data, admits that there’s something amiss and yet — all facts be damned! — the media keeps falling for it.”Francis Jeffrey, who has patents assigned to him, told us the other day: “This effect was worsened by the addition of renewal fees: USPTO has imposed quadrennial fee since Clinton/Bush administration.”
Don’t think that only the above demonstrates the invalidity of the EPO’s “results”. We previously covered other such indicators. EPO insiders, one of whom has access to such data, admits that there’s something amiss and yet — all facts be damned! — the media keeps falling for it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 7:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli wouldn’t do what Blatter did, would he?
Whispering about what people close to Battistelli (his ‘clergymen’) have allegedly been whispering to directors at the EPO
Summary: A growing number of claims that directors at the EPO are being promised big favours in exchange for the pretense that they support the megalomaniacal President, whose days are numbered
SOME things are mere rumours, but when heard from several sources that agree with one another independently, then these “rumours” may in fact be real, or something close enough to a reality.
For quite some time we’ve abstained from remarking about rumours sent to us in comments. It’s about potentially more alleged bribery at the EPO. Several people have told us that Battistelli uses not only scare tactics and intimidation to get support but also bribes. Based on some of the latest rumours, Battistelli is more or less bribing people (e.g. with promotion) to support him. If anyone can leak material proof to us, that would help a great deal, but all we have for now are the claims sent to us, as well as the following new comment:
How can you work for an organisation, where the so called President is trying to bribe senior managers and directors, and vice presidents to support him against his fight with the Administrative Council, Unions and staff?
I happened to be in an area last week, where a vice president was speaking with some directors, and I heard him say “The president will reward you for your support during this matter”. What is that meant to mean, that the President is paying for support, as he knows that he has overstepped the mark this time, and certainly not the first time. Unfortunately, it is not his personal money that he pays with, no it’s the office money, which he is giving away as though there is an endless supply.
Another new comment says:
Not all employers are allowed to vote.
Anyway it states that 91 per cent of the 4062 employees who voted, voted to strike.
We have had enough, as now the Vice Presidents are using bribery as their new weapon. “You support the President, and l will see that you are rewarded”.
Time for a change, not just the President, but also the Vice Presidents!
We have been getting even more reports that the EPO’s President, Battistelli, is incentivising/bribing managers, but concrete proof is needed. Here is another new comment which relates to the documents we leaked an hour ago:
According to an article in the SDZ
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/behoerde-in-muenchen-europaeisches-patentamt-behoerde-am-abgrund-1.2889015
“Battistelli is said to be prepared to compromise on four out of six issues [of the letter of Board 28], but significantly not with regard to disciplinary procedures and external monitoring – the key points.”
It’s a lose-lose situation for him: either straightforward reject any request of review and risk dismissal by the AC now, or accept an independent review that will show the disgraceful way in which the staff reps were dismissed, and suffer a public humiliation AND dismissal later.
And we have not yet heard about the fate of the DG3 member: a second failure in obtaining his dismissal would only add to the embarrassment of the AC that was misled by the president …
Grab the popcorns and a beer, sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the next AC …
There will be a protest that day. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Unrest at the European Patent Office will be on display next week when the President’s bosses are convening and discussing him
THE EPO scandals led to an imminent strike (date to be decided on and confirmed pretty soon). It’s the beginning of the end of Battistelli’s regime. Not even an earthquake can stop it because more and more people in the Administrative Council now have the courage to stand up to the bully (this earthquake joke’s context being a really dumb statement from Battistelli).
Based on MIP, “EPO action latest: demonstration due next Weds to coincide with Admin Council meeting. Decision on timing of strike after that.”
“The cause for the strike is being made up by trolls, or those who deliberately misinform about the cause (it doesn’t look as though they speak innocently, i.e. out of ignorance).”Bergot and her relatives (or their friends) gave a requirement of 5 working days before the strike, so this probably leaves (maybe deliberately) too little time to make the strike coincide with the Administrative Council’s meeting, especially if there’s induced procrastination (like not receiving or opening letters on time). We saw these tactics before. Either way, the Administrative Council will again be reminded that its members are expected to help staff, not the oppressors (Battistelli et al) — something which is very likely to happen based on newly-leaked documents.
The strike action is already being trolled. The cause for the strike is being made up by trolls, or those who deliberately misinform about the cause (it doesn’t look as though they speak innocently, i.e. out of ignorance). We don’t want to entertain or feed the trolls, giving them more visibility than they deserve, but some of our readers probably know what’s being alluded to here.
Anyway, here is WIPR‘s report on the upcoming strike:
Calls for the reinstatement of union officials dismissed from their posts at the European Patent Office (EPO) intensified yesterday after members of staff voted overwhelmingly in favour of a strike.
In a vote for strike action, 91% (3,701) of those who voted backed industrial action, it was confirmed yesterday, March 8.
In order to strike, at least 40% of staff are required to vote on whether to take action. In total, 4,062 out of 6,738 staff voted, representing 60%.
[...]
A spokesperson for the EPO told WIPR that a social dialogue between staff and management at the EPO is important, but noted that strikes do happen.
“Battistelli under pressure like never before after EPO union members overwhelmingly back strike action” was the headline from an EPO apologist, who wrote:
The firing and downgrading of the SUEPO officials, though, has changed the entire dynamic at the office. In retrospect, it seems that Battistelli misread previous lack of support for industrial action among the examiner corps for acceptance of his changes; while at the same time over-estimating the backing he had on the Administrative Council, a body that has always been extremely political. Now he finds himself in a very difficult situation. He may seek to point to the fact that 50% of staff members have not supported strike action, but the obvious comeback is that over 90% of the members of the office’s biggest union – the only ones who took part in the vote – did. It is unlikely that they are unique in their discontent. If, though, Battistelli accedes to the Administrative Council’s request for an external review of the disciplinary measures he took, that will be seen as a significant dent to his authority.
[...]
We will have to wait to see how this plays out. But one thing is certain: Benoît Battistelli is under pressure like he never has been before; today his leadership of the EPO is in crisis.
If anyone can provide us information about the timing of the strike and why it does not coincide with the Administrative Council’s meeting, we would truly appreciate it. No doubt Bergot and Battistelli can come up with all sorts of lies to sabotage — in hope of altogether preventing — the strike. █
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