01.20.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The truly horrible UPC (should stand for “Unlimited Power for Corporations”), which no European politician wants to even publicly talk about
Summary: The 1%’s (richest people’s) wishlist regarding patent enforcement (high damages, broad injunctions etc.) is quickly progressing without the public even made aware of it or honestly lectured on its consequences for ordinary Europeans
LAST week we spotted early signs of Britain falling deeper into the UPC trap, having already jumped the gun and set up courts as if unitary patent courts were inevitable. Days ago we wrote about what IP Kat now calls “BREAKING NEWS” (yes, all caps!) and we contacted some officials, who were of course stonewalling, pretending they don’t exist at all (or are blind/deaf). And they say we have a functioning democracy here in the UK… with elected officials, representatives, etc.
“And they say we have a functioning democracy here in the UK… with elected officials, representatives, etc.”In light of heavy EPO lobbying for UPC (in spite of backlash from many) we think that stopping the UPC in the UK has just gotten harder. It “now needs to receive approval from both Houses of Parliament,” IP Kat wrote. “Usually, this can be achieved quite quickly, and once the SI is approved, the UK will be in a position to ratify the UPC Agreement.”
As one among several comments put it (some from opportunistic patent lawyers in the UK), the “UK should not ratify until it is clear the rule of law applies within the EPO. The EU cannot and should not subcontract to an organisation that appears to flout laws on Human Rights.”
“Do we really want to give even more power and authority to thugs like Benoît Battistelli and Željko Topić, who treat their own staff like dirt?”As pointed out in numerous sites of patent lawyers (opportunistic and self-serving in this context) since Wednesday morning, Finland made a big mistake, giving more authority to these people who are immune from European law. As WIPR put it today: “Finland has become the latest country to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, raising the total number of confirmed participants to nine.
“The country deposited its instrument of ratification yesterday, January 19. The development was confirmed on the European Council’s website.
“Finland is the latest country to approve the UPC deal since Portugal ratified the agreement last August.”
Do we really want to give even more power and authority to thugs like Benoît Battistelli and Željko Topić, who treat their own staff like dirt? Imagine how they’d treat Europe as a whole (it is already appalling enough as it is).
” It’s all about making the rich and the powerful richer and more powerful. Ordinary Europeans have nothing to gain from it.”It’s not clear why a country like Portugal might make such an error in light of the terrible treatment that its neighbour, Spain, has been receiving from the EPO (see Spanish translation). Taking into account previous names/labels for UPC, we have written many hundreds of articles about it over the years. Its effect on Europe is similar to that of TPP and/or TTIP. It’s all about making the rich and the powerful richer and more powerful. Ordinary Europeans have nothing to gain from it. They don’t even get to vote on it! If citizens were given the ability to make informed decisions and cast a vote on this, it would never pass. Remember ACTA? █
“None are so fond of secrets as those who do not mean to keep them.”
–Charles Caleb Colton
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What (a lot of) PR money and determination to deceive can evidently achieve
Summary: The latest EPO spin dissected in light of a new communiqué (serving to show highly selective reporting or bias by omission) and some nonsensical numbers that the PR team kept repeating amidst unprecedented unrest
TODAY there was a massive EPO protest in Munich (more details to come at a later date), but staff that chooses to live in a bubble may not have noticed. There was a media blackout, so to speak, as the management tried to pretend there was nothing except "social dialogue" or "union recognition" (even when additional representatives suffer salary cuts).
“There was a media blackout, so to speak, as the management tried to pretend there was nothing except “social dialogue” or “union recognition” (even when additional representatives suffer salary cuts).”We previously wrote about several instances in which EPO management was trying to cast SUEPO-led protests as a security risk. It tried to frame them as violent or negative outsiders, where usually the excuse/pretext happened to be racist or aggressive political protests (nothing to do with EPO or even to do with patents).
“There was an internal announcement concerning today’s demos,” a source told us earlier tonight. “But it wasn’t about SUEPO’s event scheduled at 12:30, a march leaving the Isar building and heading to the Staatskanzlei, which is the seat of the Bavarian executive. Nay, there is no such thing as a SUEPO demo, heck there isn’t even a SUEPO.
“The demo in question is one which was held before the EPO building complex near the Munich central railway station, where much of DG1 examination activities takes place. (The Isar building is home to DG3, DG3, and DG0). The occasion were opposition oral proceedings concerning European patent EP1962578. The scope of its claims includes naturally obtained melons.”
“We previously wrote about several instances in which EPO management was trying to cast SUEPO-led protests as a security risk.”Interestingly enough, only hours ago the article titled “European Patent Office revokes Monsanto patent on melons” got published. Surrendering to pressure? Is the EPO also saving face after Parliament fumed? Patents on life on their death throes? Either way, this new article says: “Monsanto was claiming melons with a natural resistance to plant viruses as its own invention, derived from breeding without genetic engineering. The resistance was detected in Indian melons. The patent was granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) even though European patent law does not allow patents on plant varieties and processes for conventional breeding. The Indian government supported the opposition from No Patents on Seeds! by a sending letter requesting the patent to be revoked. The letter was sent to the EPO just one day before the hearing. Essentially the application of the patent constituted an act of biopiracy – violating Indian law and international treaties.”
“Here’s a link to a German NGO organising the campaign,” our source told us. “The communiqué mentions 40 demonstrators without providing a source for this information. I suspect that this number is the number of the members of the public who were allowed to enter the rooms of the proceedings. I don’t know how many actually showed up.”
Here is the distraction effort:
Home -> Organisation -> DG 0 -> D External Communications -> Announcements
NGOs to demonstrate at PschorrHöfe
19.01.2016
On Wednesday, in front of the entrance at Bayerstrasse 34 until about 10.00 hrs
A group of patent-critical activists has announced it will demonstrate outside the PschorrHöfe I/IV building tomorrow, Wednesday 20 January on the occasion of public oral proceedings in Opposition related to a biotechnology patent. About 40 activists are expected to gather on the pavement in front of the main entrance at Bayerstrasse 34 until about 10.00 hrs. In view of this the EPO will step up its security measures to safeguard proper continuation of all operations.
As during earlier demonstrations of this kind, Facility Management and the Media Relations team will be on site to handle all queries and requests. Should you be approached by protesters, please remain calm and refer them to the Press Desk (extension xxxxxxx) or to the Press Spokesman on site (Rainer Osterwalder, xxxx).
Rainer Osterwalder External Communications
19.01.16 | Author Rainer Osterwalder – External Communications
Nice job, Rainer (shown at the top with the FTI Consulting logo). Painting protesters as anti-patents, i.e. antithetical to the EPO.
Rainer, from what we’ve heard, may be the worst of the whole bunch (the PR team). Come on, Team Battistelli, who are you kidding? Not a single word about the SUEPO-led protest? The PR team said nothing at all, not even in Twitter; they were exceptionally busy in Twitter when the protest took place (about 4 tweets in those 2 hours, which means they didn’t attend the protest).
“Nowadays, we see ever more cases in which the examiner has clearly not studied the cited prior art in enough depth, and gives a wrong and/or highly abbreviated analysis of patentability.”
–AnonymousAnother noteworthy thing about the PR (or ‘damage control’) strategy is the effort to justify severe abuses by claiming high salaries (the management’s media strategy) and parroting some faked/twisted numbers. These help glorify the EPO and exploit gullible journalists who are unable to see they’re being bamboozled. There have been several discussions rebutting these claims. Regarding George Brock-Nannestad’s comment (highlighted in our previous post), one person writes: “As George Brock-Nannestad has pointed out, one important effect of the increased production pressure at the EPO has been a dramatic increase in costs for small European businesses. Take the examination procedure, for example. Until a few years ago, we could normally rely on the examiner to analyse cited documents carefully and to give reasonably complete arguments. Nowadays, we see ever more cases in which the examiner has clearly not studied the cited prior art in enough depth, and gives a wrong and/or highly abbreviated analysis of patentability. In the best case, such a deficit can be dealt with by a competent patent attorney, at a largely-avoidable cost to the applicant of a few thousand EUR up to grant. In the worst case, a small applicant may either give up (if the examiner’s assessment is overly negative) or proceed to grant with an inadequate patent (if the examiner has missed some important clarity or patentability issues). Here, the costs to the small applicant are incalculable.”
Another comment says: “The next step in that evolution is that examiners will be given less time to reply to the applicant’s submission. Expedite prosecution will be preferred for the sake of a number: mean prosecution time. In other words, applicant’s submissions will not be adequately heard and applications will be expeditely refused. Unless the applicant is so big to complain effectively. Of course.
“In the worst case, a small applicant may either give up (if the examiner’s assessment is overly negative) or proceed to grant with an inadequate patent (if the examiner has missed some important clarity or patentability issues).”
–Anonymous“For doing this, control of the BoA would be necessary so that the clog to be produced by the increased number of appeals be dealt with in a proper manner, i.e according to the orders of the President.”
Now it gets funnier. One person says that the EPO’s PR is “comparable to the voting results at the meeting of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party!” To quote the whole comment: “Are you suggesting that the quality of examination at the EPO is down? This simply cannot be possible. According to the last message of the President, in 2015 quality in examination was 98,7%, and 98,6% in search. These results are comparable to the voting results at the meeting of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party! (cue to members of the Administrative Council of EPO giving a standing ovation).”
The EPO has been making up the most nonsensical numbers we have ever come across (worse than the USPTO’s, which doesn’t resort to such pretenses). Earlier today the EPO’s PR department repeated these claims yet again, stating that: “Our internal quality rates (CASE indices) were 98.6% for searches and 98.7% for examinations” (nonsense! We rebutted this before).
“Are you suggesting that the quality of examination at the EPO is down?”
–AnonymousAs the above comment put it: “Are you suggesting that the quality of examination at the EPO is down?” EPO priorities have shifted in favour huge corporations (approval is faster for these, which means more lenient an examination process), so this question must be rhetorical.
As another person put it, “”productivity” results in a massive hike in costs for the EPO’s smaller applicants.”
Here is this comment in full:
Interesting points about quality. Those figures of 98.6% and 98.7% are a great deal more precise than they are accurate, I would venture to suggest.
Just to emphasise my point: a modest gain in examiner “productivity” results in a massive hike in costs for the EPO’s smaller applicants.
Larger applicants don’t suffer the same problem – they have internal attorneys who can sort things out.
“Last year VP1 was complaining about the number of areas giving 100% results as he considered that impossible,” said this shocking comment. “The figures are self-assessment where the errors spotted by your colleagues (friends or foes?) are counted. There are other figures which a separate department calculates which are less North Korean but less impressive in a presentation.”
“If true, then even North Korea seems more honest and sincere (to its citizens) than the EPO is to its own staff.”Now pick your jaws back up from the ground. If true, then even North Korea seems more honest and sincere (to its citizens) than the EPO is to its own staff.
We’ve said it before and we need to say it again just in case; the EPO’s management and the PR team are a bunch of liars. Do not believe anything they say. Whatever they say should be deemed suspect until proven otherwise (by a truly independent assessor, not so-called 'journalists' whom the EPO pays). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together.”
–Daniel Webster
Photo via Wikipedia
Summary: “I have appealed the French Government immediately,” wrote Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ yesterday, having witnessed Battistelli’s deception and overriding of disciplinary committees’ decisions
Days after Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ had lashed out at EPO President Benoît Battistelli (see it in English or Spanish) we received a translation of yet another letter by Mr. Le Borgn’. In it, despite menacing letters from Battistelli, Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ correctly points out that President Battistelli “set these sanctions well beyond the recommendations that were given to him by the EPO’s disciplinary committees,” as we covered here some days ago. What kind of tyrant is Battistelli and why did he lie to his staff (lies that were further disseminated by the 'journalist' who had probably defamed an accused judge on behalf of Team Battistelli)? Here is a translation of what Mr. Le Borgn’ wrote:
I learned with astonishment the decision announced this morning by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoît Battistelli, to harshly punish 3 EPO employees, leaders of SUEPO union in Munich. I am deeply shocked. Two of these officers, the first one being the union chairwoman at the Munich location, and other the former chairman, are dismissed. The chairwoman is even deprived of a part of her pension rights. A heavy downgrade hits the third officer.
I note that President Battistelli set these sanctions well beyond the recommendations that were given to him by the EPO’s disciplinary committees. The will to do evil, to frighten, to eradicate all criticism and any intermediate power is therefore characterized. And assumed.
I have appealed the French Government immediately. What is happening is a shame and a deep injustice. I expect the Member States of the EPO, starting with France, to intervene urgently to put an end to arbitrariness and this drift that ruins lives, destroys families and undermines the work of all the organisation. It cannot be accepted that the immunity enjoyed by the organisation leads to such deviations from the rule of law, which is based, among other things, on respect for the rights of trade union representatives and staff, independence of disciplinary committees in relation to the management, and the proportionality of sanctions: these are as many questions that were largely ignored here.
An organisation has a future only when its staff is recognisable in its project, in its governance and its management. This is no longer the case at the EPO. It is urgent for Member States to reflect on the reasons that led to it. And to clearly consider the renewal of the governance of the EPO and of its managing team.
We would like to quote some fairly new comments from IP Kat because they help show how people feel about the Battistelli regime, which Mr. Le Borgn’ must have been studying recently.
George Brock-Nannestad, not even bothering with anonymity (standing behind his words with no fear of future retributions), wrote: “It looks as if all initiatives at the EPO are directed towards reducing its competence in respect of deciding at a low-cost level who has the better right to an innovation. The EPO is increasingly directing its efforts to enable conflict resolution at a high-cost level, for instance by performing searches resulting in lists of patents that have to be analysed privately. The results of these analyses are used in evaluating the chance of winning a court case, and the prospects of the costs are becoming so forbidding that a settlement is preferable. That part of the industry that most needs it is made incapable of predicting a likely outcome of an investment in novel technologies. The purpose of the patent system was to increase innovation, not to create stagnation.
“One of the attempts to stifle the technical and legal competences of the EPO is the proposed re-organisation of the Boards of Appeal. The most direct and well-argued opposition to the official proposals has come from UNION-IP, an NGO that has many EPI members. Their statement was published in epi-Information No. 4 of 2015, pp. 120-22 (available at http://patentepi.com/assets/uploads/documents/epi-information/epi_Information_4_2015.pdf — do your own copy-and-paste). The expression “already barely in line with a juridical independency” is used in relation to the reappointment rules as they stand, even before any revision. It is to the great credit of epi that they have published this incisive text.
“On a different, but equally potentially detrimental matter a contributor to the journal, Mr. A. Hards, expresses his views on the re-organsation of the EQE. (making combined papers A and B for both mechanics and chemistry; same issue pp. 142-43). I read his contribution as if he considers the re-organisation of the EQE to be a ‘dumbing-down’ of the whole profession. He utters surprise: “It cannot be understood, why the German candidate system can support a full 6 months’ training course at the German Patent Court with lectures, courtroom participation and courses from seasoned patent judges, while the EPO has nothing comparable. Where are the Board of Appeal members? Where are the EPO legal experts and the veteran examiners? These are the guardians of EPO patent case law and prosecution and as such they are the best sources of knowledge for grassroots training.”
“It is my impression that the EPO system is systematically developing towards less interest in ‘EPO Case law’.
“The suppression of professionalism of the EPO examining staff that is now out into the open contributes to the same end: a reduction in official capacity to stave off conflict. Those professionals who have acted as quiet reporters of the trend (which they discovered before anybody else) are being considered as whistleblowers in the style of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. The acts of infringement of these persons’ human rights are blatant but apparently not culpable under any applicable law.
“It is completely incomprehensible that the EU is capable of prohibiting the labelling of produce from the Israeli occupied West Bank as originating in Israel or to institute observation proceedings against Poland even before any act of suppression of the freedom to speak, but the EU is still able to contract a subsupplier to patents with unitary effect from an entity that suppresses human rights far more. I consider that any contract entered into should be annulled and re-negotiated, taking full account of the human rights situation in the EPO system. Any contraventions of human rights having already taken place must be nullified and full compensation given. The respect for the EU is being pulled down by the company it keeps.”
I’m mentioned in a response to George in a not very flattering fashion, without even alluding to what I said which was deemed speculative or insufficiently substantiated/accurate. Another person (anonymous) wrote: I can only agree with George that everything is made to run the EPO in the wall. The question is simply for the benefit of whom? I do not like the conspiracies theories of Mr Schestowitz, but in spite of all the exaggeration shown, there may be something true in them.”
I have been writing about patents for over a decade and unlike people who follow the subject because they profit from it, I’m willing to openly criticise and to habitually express my personal observations even when these are negative and potentially offensive. There are no “conspiracies theories” [sic] unless one can actually point out examples of those. George once called me “strident” (or the Danish word for it), but that itself is not a discrediting term. The commenter goes on: “I long wondered if BB had a hidden agenda. It is actually not hidden. The one discernible is: I am the boss and I decide what I want, irrespective of any proposal of decision of a joint committee staff/management. This is a perversion of law. That EPO needed a reform as it was set in many ways is not to be denied, but it did not to be as drastic as it fell out. And not simply to satisfy the ego of such a nasty person as BB. May be it was time to have an investigation unit, but nobody, but he and his minions, guessed how it could be misused.
“The pressure on the examiners has become such, that in spite of their pride and professionalism they often have no choice but to deal quickly with searches and the ensuing examination. They do not even anymore have the choice of the file they can deal with. They have to follow what the computer says! It might be understandable that is happens on a factory chain, but not when it comes to such an intellectual job. The people presently running the EPO are not even managers, they are morons thinking they are managers. In any private corporation they would have been fired, but the members of the AC are spineless, at least for most of them.”
“It might boost production to deal with easy files, but it will backlash as difficult ones will eventually to be tackled.
“What is happening with the Boards of Appeal is a scandal. Making a proposal in which the Boards would have no say on their own rules of procedure is unbelievable. As an alumni of one of the “better” schools of France, BB should know what separation of power means. He has conveniently forgotten it. At least he has shown the deep disdain he has for anything not dancing at his tune.”
Here comes the part about the French involvement/role: “That BB is at odds with the present French authorities is to be seen in another situation. BB organised in Lyon a gathering to celebrate 30 years of cooperation with SIPO. Not only were the French authorities not invited, they were not even informed. Look at http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/7E1A61AB656965E2C1257E8F004CD6F8/$File/epo-sipo_symposium_programme_en.pdf
“This has to be seen against the instructions given to staff off the EPO when visiting member states to inform the national patent office. Do what I say, but do not dare do what I do….”
Here again is an example of Battistelli exercising authority without oversight.
“I have to stop now. I am boiling of anger,” concluded this commenter. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 6:30 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Acciones políticas contra la gerencia de la OEP están multiplicandose despues del aplastamiento de uniones laborales
El cubrimiento de la OEP aumentará mañana, pero antes que lleguemos a ello queremos mencionar al señor Cordery de nuevo. Como resaltamos anteriormente hoy, Philip Cordery, quien representa a trabajadores en el extranjero, esta muy molesto con su compatriota Pinocho Battistelli, quien esta rodeados de otros (similarmente no calificados) franceses.
Alguien nos envión una traducción de las declaraciones de Cordery despues de un par de horas de requerirla. Aquí esta:
Día Tenebroso en la Oficina de Patentes Europeas (OEP).
La gerencia antisocial de la OEP, liderada por su presidente Pinocho Battistelli, ha alcanzado nuevas alturas hoy. Sanciones sin precedente fueron impuestas contra tres de los representates de sus empleados: el presidente de SUEPO Munich fue despedida con un descuento del 20% de sus derechos de pensiones; el presidente anterior de esa organización (nota de traductor: SUEPO UNION) también fue despedido; el tesorero bajado de cargo por 8 niveles, que equivale a la pérdida de 15 años de trabajo. La ¨razón¨ haber representado públicamente a sus colegas en su intentos a defender sus derechos.
Estas autoritarias y arbitrarias decisiones son puramente ESCANDALOSAS. Los más basicos derechos de empleados, acatados en todos los países europeos, son aplastados en la OEP sin que ningúna corte nacional o internacional sea capaz de actuar. INMUNITY NO SIGNIFICA INPUNIDAD.
Por muchos años, la situación social de esta organización esta empeorando. Basta ya! Todos los estados miembros deben actuar pronto, como Francia, que repedidamente ha llamado por una auditoría pública. Ye de nuevo apelé al gobierno en este sentido. Hay una urgente necesidad de poner punto final a las arbitrariedades y resucitar esta organización tan importante para toda Europa.
Quiero asegurar a los empleados, y en particular a sus representantes, my pleno apoyo. Permanecemos vigilantes y actuaremos con todo nuestras fuerzas hasta que la democracia y justicia recuperen sus derechos dentro de la Oficina.
A las 7:30 hoy la misma persona publicó la traducción en IP Kat también. Es importante para todas las personas que trabajan en la OEP. Todos ellos deben leérla. Algunos políticos estan sincera y apasionadamente luchando por los empleados de la OEP ahora mismo. Basado en información que no podemos hacerla conocer ahora (lo haremos en un futuro cercano), hay similares acciones contra la gerencia de la OEP dentro de los mecanismos de queja de la OEP, in politicas británicas y europes. Las ruedas se estan moviendo y para acelerar las cosas urgimos a los lectores a contactar a sus delegados sin duda. Hace una diferencia grande cuando estos delegados reciben sugerencias, opiniones del pueblo a quienes representan; muchos de esos delegados no leen las noticias. Algunas cosas son mejor dejadas detrás del escenario por el momento presente. Cambio puede ser eminente y no somos pesímistas. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 5:35 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Philip Cordery (below) se une a la batalla despues de las quejas de Pierre-Yves Le Borgn…
Sumario: Benoit Battistelli esta bajo intensa presión por los representativos franceses de sus ciudadanos residentes en el extranjero; surgen preguntas, citando Juicio ILOAT 1061, acerca de la verdadera existencia de Battistelli dentro de la OEP (así como elegibilidad para sostener el cargo).
El montón de ´ropa sucia´ de la OEP esta creciendo de nuevo, asi como los molestos lectores contra ella enviandonos mayor información (creciendo nuestras fuentes). Una cosa que deseamos sacar del camino -por decir- antes de proseguir a nuevas revelaciones es el ATAQUE CONTRA REPRESENTATES DE SUS EMPLEADOS. Las cosas estan lejos de terminar y animamos a los lectores europeos a contactar a sus delegados.
¨Cuando la injustica se convierte en ley, la resistencia se convierte en un deber,¨ Thomas Jefferson es citado esta mañana. Cordery política quien previamente protestó acerca del régimen de Battistelli (escribimos acerca de él en más de una ocasión), esta luchando de nuevo (el esta en el cuarto constituyente para los franceses residentes en el extranjero):
Philip Corder MP Frances representando ciudadanos franceses viviendo en el Benelux escribión en Facebook
16 January at 01:31 · Brussels, Belgium ·
Journée noire à l’Office européen des brevets (OEB / European Patent Office)
La gestion antisociale de l’OEB, conduite par son président M. Batistelli, a atteint aujourd’hui des nouveaux sommets. Des sanctions sans précédent ont été prononcées à l’encontre de trois représentants du personnel : la présidente de Suepo Munich licenciée avec en prime une réduction de 20% de ses droits à la retraite ; l’ancien président de cette même organisation, licencié ; son trésorier rétrogradé de 8 échelons, ce qui équivaut à perdre 15 ans de travail. Motif ? Avoir daigné publiquement représenter leurs collègues pour tenter de défendre leurs droits.
Ces décisions autoritaires et arbitraires sont purement scandaleuses. Les droits les plus élémentaires des salariés, en vigueur dans tous les pays d’Europe, sont bafoués au sein de l’OEB sans qu’aucune juridiction nationale ou internationale ne puisse agir. Immunité n’est pas synonyme d’impunité.
Depuis de trop nombreuses années, la situation sociale de cette organisation se dégrade. Trop c’est trop. L’ensemble des États membres doit agir et vite, à l’instar de la France qui a à plusieurs reprises demandé un audit social. J’ai de nouveau saisi le gouvernement en ce sens. Il faut d’urgence mettre un terme à l’arbitraire et refaire vivre cette organisation si importante pour l’Europe toute entière.
Je veux assurer tout le personnel, et notamment ses représentants, de mon soutien plein et entier. Nous restons vigilants et agirons avec tous nos moyens jusqu’à ce que la démocratie et la justice retrouvent leurs droits au sein de l’Office.
Una traducción al Inglés de lo de arriba será muy apreciada. Todavía estamos esperando por alguién quien provea una traducción del artícule de Heise y una copia de la comunicación internal de Battistelli acerca de los despidos el pasado viernes.
Cuánto más puede Pinocho Battistelli resistir? Ya amenazón con renunciar. Sus conecciones políticas en Francia dice este nuevo comentario ¨es una brecha a los estándares requeridos de un servidor internacional¨.
Escribimos acerca de las conecciones políticas anoche y aquí esta el comentario que refleja mucho más:
Un número de comentadores aquí se han referido a las connecciones políticas en Francia y el hecho que ejerce como consejero munícipal en Francia (St. Germain-en-Laye) en ticket del partido por la UMP (por mientras renombrado como ¨Los Repúblicanos¨).
Sin embargo, nadie parece haber notado tal enredo en política partidaria nacional esta en desacuerdo de los estándares requeridos de un servidor internacional civil de acuerdo al Juicio ILOAT 1061:
¨…un servidor civil internacional, aunque tiene derecho a sus propios puntos de vista políticos, debe separarse de demostraciones de adherencia a un partido político. Integridad, lealtad al servicio civil internacional, independencia e imparcialidad son los estándares requeridos de un servidor civil internacional y ellos le requieren de el mantenerse libre de actividades en políticas partidarias nacionales.
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.detail?p_judgment_no=1061
Apparentemente estos estándares no se aplican a BB….
Si, Battistelli parece tener diferentes reglas aplicables a él (si existe alguna y son actualmente honoradas). Aquí viene la comparación con la FIFA de nuevo. ‘Maxdrei’ (pseudonimo de quien parece un profesional de patentes básado en comentarios previous) es citado diciendo: ¨Fué por el señor Blatter arreglo el flujo de dividendos hacia miembros individuales en tal manere que muchos de ellos lo consideró un héroe. Me cuesta trabajo ver que muchos estados miembros de la EPC ven a BB como héroe por la misma razón.¨
La respuesta a aquello fue así: ¨el dinero hace que el mundo gire y todavía, el manejo de Battistelli es más comprehensivo que ese. Por ejempl cuando un miembro de la delegación del Consejo Administrativo de un pais se ha atrevido a decir algo que no estaba en el libreto, el tiempo dedicado al país de aquella delegacion en cualquier meeting puede ser recortado drásticamente. La mayoría de miembros estados de la EPC, probablemente no ve BB como un héroe. Desafortunadamente, ellos simplenente no piensan que tienen otra alternativa que estar de acuerdo con lo que el quiere de ellos.¨
Más temprano otra persona (talvez británico por la apariencia) escribió: ¨señores Alty y Denehey (delegados británicos), el tiempo ha venido para decidir si eres Churchil o un mono rendido de Vichy, Francia. Saquen huevos y resistan.¨
Los señores Alty y Denehey incluso no responden. Están aislando. Recuerden como el gobierno británico intervino el año pasado cuando los empleados de la OEP planearon una protesta contra estos individuos.
Como una persona lo puso: ¨Los países anfitriones tienen una responsabilidad especial ya que ellos son los anfitriones. ¿Saben cuán bueno es para la economía de Munich albergar a la OEP? Lo minimo que puedes esperar de un país es vigilancia. Los Alemanes estan cerrando sus ojos. No merecen más respeto ahora.
Aludiendo al Sarkozyism y Battistelli, una persona escribió: La primera solicitud de la embajada frances nunca fue respondida por los altos niveles de la OEP. La segunda solicitud recibió un rotundo rechazo ¨a la Battistelli¨ (se cagó en la noticia). Hay rumores que Hollande apreció el acto en su totalidad.¨
Acerca de una sugestión de boycotear (productos Alemanes) una persona respondió: ¨un boycott de productos alemanes sería algo discriminatorio cuando todos los estados parecen ser complices.¨
En todo sentido, todas las naciones son cómplices en su silencio, pero sólo Alemania puede envíar investigadores Federales (e.g. acerca de abusos de privacidad). Otra persona llamó la atención una alternativa que se relaciona con la Patente Unitaria (UP). La persona escribió: ¨Es un punto digno, pero sugiero otra medida que golpeará donde más duele. DEJEMOS DE USAR EL SISTEMA DE PATENTES DE LA OEP. Y como corolario el sistema UP si alguno.¨
Una cosa segura es, la UPC (o UP cortamente) afianzará el poder de la OEP y servirá a abogados alemanes (un hecho ampliamente conocido). ¿Porqué recompensarlos despues del ATROZ REGIMEN DE BATTISTELLI? No tiene sentidoa. La gerencia de la OEP esta completamente quebrada, sin arreglo (mucha complicidad [http://techrights.org/2015/07/10/epo-appointments/]). Necesita ser reconstruida completamente. Preguntas sobre legalidad de esta gerencia (no sólo Battistelli) deben salir a luz y propagarse más para que medidas reales se concreten. █
“El gobierno se compone de un grupo de hombres exactamente como tú y yo. Tienen, afinidad uno con otro, ningún talento especial para los asuntos de gobierno; sólo tienen un talento para obtener y ejercer cargos.”
–Henry Mencken
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Eponian nightmare
“The statesman who would attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himeslf with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”
–Adam Smith
Summary: As expected, Battistelli’s war on staff that does not agree with him 100% on everything proceeds to the next phase, broadening the war front and picking on lower level representatives
THE EPO protest has just ended, so now is a good opportunity to revisit the motivations and the cause. Those who aren’t (yet) furious probably just don’t know what’s going on. Maybe they believe the EPO management’s lies, which the local media perpetuates (same author who did defamatory character assassination of an accused judge). Being fired from the EPO with pension cuts (i.e. future sanctions) is not the full story. Sanctions on future employment and heavy fines (in terms of legal fees) are more like the reality we’re dealing with here. SUEPO’s leaders are being punished for daring to reduce/eliminate legal costs, thus providing affordable access to justice (by joining SUEPO). The ILO has been far too slow for reprieves because of an overwhelming number of complaints. Abuses by EPO management against EPO staff are rampant.
Battistelli “and his gang,” according to this new comment, “assault another staff representative: Laurent Prunier. The latter is on sick leave. BB [Battistelli decided to simply cut Mr Prunier’s salary at the end of the month. That is once more in breach of the applicable law.
“So bash BB, bash! You’re above the law, for now.”
We mentioned Prunier by name here before [1, 2, 3], even in Spanish.
That’s not number 4 by our count. There are numerous other attacks on SUEPO representatives, but the public certainly doesn’t know about them (a lot of EPO staff doesn’t know about these attacks either). Remember that EPO management likes to (mis)use gag orders.
To quote SUEPO’s own message regarding today’s protest:
Ortssektion München . Local Section Munich . Section locale de Munich
18.01.2016
su16007mp – 0.2.1/0.3.2/0.2.2
ACTIONS CONTINUE
DEMONSTRATION
20 January 2016
Status quo
Last Friday all three of the suspended staff representatives in Munich received the decision in their disciplinary procedures. True to style, the punishments decided by Mr Battistelli were even harsher than what was recommended by the disciplinary committees. The dismissals are with immediate effect, with a “compensation corresponding to the statutory period of notice”, infringing Art. 53(3) ServRegs and depriving the colleagues concerned of 4.5 months of social security.
The decisions of Mr Battistelli were, for once, not marked as “confidential”. Instead they contained a reference to Arts. 19 and 20 ServRegs, i.e. an implicit threat with further disciplinary proceedings in case of any unauthorised publication about the cases. We are seeking legal advice about how to interpret this. For now we just mention that according to Mr Battistelli, Ion Brumme should have known that the contract used by SUEPO was illegal under German law, even though a highly
placed German judge certified that the contract is perfectly legal. In two out of three decisions furthermore a link was made to the DG3 member for whom the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the allegations not proven. The decisions seem to show that Mr Battistelli has lost touch with reality and is seeing conspiracies everywhere.
As the news spread through the Office spontaneous demonstrations erupted in Munich, The Hague, Berlin and Vienna. Despite the short notice and the icy cold the demonstration in Munich was very well attended.
Next steps
Mr Battistelli’s decisions state that a request for review may be filed with the Conflict Resolution Unit (CRU). The CRU was created by Mr Battistelli, allegedly to resolve conflicts at an early stage. In practice it doesn’t, at least not for staff: of the 375 cases in 2013/2104 that were reviewed by the external auditors, only about 4% were “allowed” or “allowed in part”1. The final decision will again
__
1 See CA/21/15, point 46.
be by the President. The next step after the CRU is a complaint at ILO-AT. ILO-AT has a massive back-log for which it blames the EPO. It also has a very low success rate for staff complaints.
Union recognition, social study and more
At the same time the Battistelli administration continues to pretend that it seeks a social dialogue. One week before the decisions Ms Bergot invited SUEPO to Union recognition talks onJanuary, i.e. a day for which a demonstration had been announced. We wonder how the administration sees such talks with the Munich SUEPO chair dismissed and still banned from the premises.
The Administrative Council is the supervisory body for the President. Ms Hardon therefore informed Mr Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Council, of the repeated investigations against her that seemed to constitute institutional harassment, initiated at the highest level in the Office, i.e. by the President. She asked for an independent investigation into the accusations lodged against her. The reply of Mr Kongstad was: “I have decided to refer your request to the President as the competent appointing authority”.
We nevertheless have the impression that at least some of the delegations in the Administrative Council have realised that making martyrs is not the best way to make peace and insisted that Mr Battistelli avoid dismissals. If so then Mr Battistelli’s decisions are not only aimed at showing staff “who’s the boss here” but also at the Council.
It is difficult to see how the “Social Study” decided by the Administrative Council in its December meeting (to be done “in close cooperation with the President”) will solve our problems any time soon. SUEPO has repeatedly requested independent, external mediation as a possible means resolve the on-going conflict. We maintain our request for mediation and will repeat it at ministerial level. Withdrawal of the disciplinary measures against all staff representatives (five up to now, with more expected) will have to be part of any plan for restoring social peace.
The bigger picture
We want to stress again that the unjustified disciplinary measures against staff representatives, albeit very serious, are only a small part of the problems generated by the Battistelli administration. Under Mr Battistelli we have seen a constant weakening of the internal and external control mechanism on the Office (starting with the dissolution of the Audit Committee) and a strengthening of controls by the President (e.g. Investigative Unit; “loyal”, mostly French co-workers on key posts) as well as a serious degradation of almost all aspects of the working conditions of staff. SUEPOalso not blind to the impact that Mr Battistelli’s misguided efficiency drive is likely to have on the functioning of the EPO, and on the European patent system as a whole. We refer to an earlier SUEPO paper entitled “Brave new EPO”.
Our claims therefore remain:
- A return to a Rule of Law, i.e. respect for the EPO regulations and for European legal norms,
- Freedom of Association, and
- Appropriate, good faith negotiation of the staff work package, including the reporting system that necessarily has an impact on the quality of the work done.
Demonstrations will continue until the EPO is back on track: with its staff policies (respect for staff rights) and with its patent policies (quality).
Demonstration: 20 January 2016
Start: 12.30h in front of the Isar building,
For a march to the Bayerische Staatskanzlei
SUEPO Munich
We hope to find time to evening to write more about the EPO (there’s plenty more on the way or in the ‘backlog’, so to speak). In the mean time, can someone please send us English translation of this new article from newspress.fr? It says (in French): “J’ai appris avec stupeur la décision annoncée ce matin par le Président de l’Office Européen des Brevets (OEB), Benoît Battistelli, de sanctionner très durement 3 agents de l’OEB, dirigeants à Munich du syndicat SUEPO. J’en suis profondément choqué. Deux de ces agents, pour l’une présidente du syndicat sur le site de Munich, pour l’autre ancien président, sont licenciés. La présidente est même privée d’une part de ses droits à pension. Une lourde rétrogradation frappe le troisième agent.
“J’observe que le Président Battistelli a fixé ces sanctions bien au-delà des recommandations que lui avaient faites les commissions de discipline de l’OEB. La volonté de faire mal, de faire peur, d’éradiquer toute critique et tout pouvoir intermédiaire est donc caractérisée. Et assumée.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Corporate takeover of Europe by means of UPC
A civil war in Europe between the very rich Europeans (who help their rich friends overseas) and the rest of Europe
Summary: The EPO is liaising with patent lawyers and large US (or international) corporations to help make the Unitary Patent a reality, irrespective of the impact on European citizens
THE EPO is scandalous for many reasons, one of which is the loyalty to multinational corporations at the expense of Europe. IAM ‘magazine’, which organises an event in favour of the UPC (with funding from the EPO), said earlier this morning that the event “boasts a world-class speaking faculty, with senior representatives from the likes of the European Patent Office, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Nokia and Ericsson, as well as a number of leading European-based private practice lawyers, attorneys and intermediaries, all slated to take part.”
“And there’s a firm in the US, FTI Consulting, helping to fund this (at the behest of the EPO) by paying a publisher.”So what we have here are many US companies, patent lawyers, and EPO managers. Great, isn’t it? And there’s a firm in the US, FTI Consulting, helping to fund this (at the behest of the EPO) by paying a publisher. Nothing wrong here. Not at all! Shut your eyes and pretend that everything Battistelli says about the UPC is true. Battistelli would never lie!
‘Amerikat’ (Annsley Merelle Ward), a booster of software patents and of the UPC (for quite some time now), currently speaks about the UPC as though it’s already some kind of inevitable reality (it’s not). Dugie Standeford from IP Watch speaks about the UPC as a “priority in 2016,” but whose? Patent lawyers’ and Team Battistelli’s? “Work on the unitary patent system continues,” he wrote, “and there’s an increased focus on the issue of patents versus plant breeders’ rights.”
We wrote about patents on plants many times before, sometimes in relation to Europe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 1:13 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La República Bananera que bien ilustra a Eponia como sigue…
Source: Archivo General Histórico del (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile)
Sumario: Una encuesta de noticias acerca de la Corte de Patentes Unitarios, los PODEROSOS INTERESES ECONÓMICOS de quienes la promueven, y quién se beneficiará de ella si (esperemos que no) se convierte en realidad.
La OEP no es un cuerpo europeo pero una ORGANIZACIÓN INTERNACIONAL POR ENCIMA DE LAS LEYES EUROPEAS – una que VIOLA las leyes internacionales mientras que se sienta inmune de las leyes locales (cualquier localidad que se encuentre). A través de los años se me han acercado personas que sacarón a la luz acerca de ello sufriendo REPRESALIAS por motivos políticos. Una de ellos pertenecía a la NU. Ví en ella mucho de lo que he visto ahora en la señorita Elizabeth Hardon. Ella amargó a la gente que ¨no debió¨ al exponer SUS ABUSOS. Ella esperó una sorpresa. El sistema legal estuvo ausente (excepto en ¨jucios¨ de espéctaculos); hubo ilegalidad (o falta de legalidad) contra ella y causó un daño a su salud física, mental, moral, etc. La percepción pública acerca de organizaciones internacionales tiene que cambiar, porque se asume que estas organizaciones se van a conducir de manera benevolente por virtud de no tener fronteras, loyalidad a cualquier nación/etnía/religión. Lo que mucha gente no se da cuenta frecuentemente es la inclinacion de tales organicaciones de servir al poder o clase económica. Esto significa LENIENCIA o FAVORITISMO PARA CORPORACIONES MULTINACIONALES (sus verdaderos AMOS). PLUTOCRÁTAS viven una vida libre de miedo de las cortes y viajan sin fronteras (incluso tiene jets privados). Ejercen el poder y coercen cuerpos/organizaciones internacionales donde la moneda (no una comodidad) es poder. Ese es un punto esencial que los empleados de la OEP tarde o temprano aprendieron por experiencia. El sistema I.L.O. es muy lento (y débil) para protegerlos. Aquellos que hablan la verdad contra el poder cuidado!, o terminarán escondiendose en una embajada en Londres o en algún lugar en Moscú.
Es difícil imaginar que alguien como Augusto ¨Joyita¨ Pinochet quisiera asociarse con un autócrata como Battistelli.”El loco que ahora gobierna la OEP, Pinocho Battistelli, reciéntemente menciondo por la prensa en Korea, lo que ha sido usado por excusa para proveer un INEXCUSABLE FAVORITISMO A LARGAS CORPORACIONES COMO MICROSOFT. Hemos escuchado que Sudamérica esta en la próxima gira. Eduardo quien provee a Techrights con todas las traducciones al español, originariamente vino de Sudamérica y no está feliz acerca que Battistelli vaya a allí. ¨Una vez mencionaste,¨ dijo, que ¨este MALANDRIN irá a Chile a visitar la tumba de Augusto ¨Joyita¨ Pinochet.¨
Bueno, sólo sabemos que Battistelli ira a Sudamérica, Colombia basado en una fuente online. Es difícil imaginar que alguién como Augusto ¨Joyita¨ Pinochet le gustaría asociarse con un AUTOCRÁTA como Pinocho Battistelli. (¿Tal para cuál?)
¨Recuerdo a my tío abuelo solía decir acerca de un dictador militar,¨ Eduardo added, ¨quien expropió muchas tierras a nuestra familia. Lo aplicaré a Pinocho Battistelli: ´Espero que cuando muera le hagan un ataúd en forma de pelota de fútbol, para llevarlo pateándolo al cementerio´¨ (un chiste cruel, no hay duda pero un montón de gente están bien molestos con Battistelli, incluso fuera de la OEP, así que voluntarios para ello no faltarán).
El mes pasado escribímos acerca de James Nurton entrevistando a Battistelli en un sitio de abogados de patentes. El dijo que Pinocho había respondido todas las preguntas entregadas a él, pero que excluyó la pregunta que soliicité a su publicista pregunte. Bonita parcialidad por omisión. La entrevista que James Nurton hizo a Battistelli (sujeta a reglas estrictas y condiciones impuestas por su agresivo equipo de relaciónes públicas) estuvo llena de PROPAGANDA POR LA CORTE UNITARIA DE PATENTES, a pesar que la UPC no es una realidad todavía y pueda que nunca lo sea. Aquí esta Nurton de nuevo con ¨Algunas preguntas prácticas acerca de la UPC¨ (más de puntos hablantes a favor de la UPC y profecías auto-cumplientes).
“El [Battistelli] puede parecer superficialmente amigable con los clientes y en realidad ejerce un montón de presión sobre los examinadores y miembros de la gerencia para no rechazar aplicaciones o de otra manera morder la mano que los alimenta.”
–Anonymous¨Mientras el reloj va en cuenta regresiva para la inaguración de la Corte Unitaria de Patentes,¨ escribió Nurton, ¨el interés crece acerca de como los futuros jueces manejarán los casos, quiénes serán y qué impacto la UPC tendrá en Europa¨ (La gente ya esta aplicando por estos trabajos en el Reino Unido, como recién nos enteramos, sin embargo la gran mayoría de tales trabajos estarán en Alemania).
El artículo de Nurton esta vacío de críticas a la UPC. Esta hablando a abogados de patentes, no Europeos (más del 99% de ellos no son abogados de patentes) a quienes la UPC trae no otra cosa pero daños.
Como un comentario lo puso hoy, la mayoría de abogados no están a favor de la Unidad de Patentes. Para citar esto en contexto (los escándalos de la OEP):
Más allá alguine preguntó ¿porqué Merpel en particular y abogados en general deberían preocuparse acerca de un caso que parece tratarse acerca de empleados no felices de su unión?
Bueno, tienes que pensar realmente en alguien que no respeta a sus empleados y los maltrata con tal desprecio a la ley sería más respetuoso de ella cuando se trata de sus clientes.
El [Battistelli] puede parecer superficialmente amigable con los clientes y en realidad ejerce un montón de presión sobre los examinadores y miembros de la gerencia para no rechazar aplicaciones o de otra manera morder la mano que los alimenta. Pero en realidad la mayoría de abogados no estan de acuerdo con la Patente Unitaria. No serán tratados lo mismo cuando suceda un conflicto de interés entre ENORMES CORPORACIONES MULTINACIONALES Y local entidades económicas.
Realmente, aquí los grandes BENEFICIARIOS SON LAS GRANDES MULTINACIONALES. Una compañía como Apple es dicho haber estimado que con un juicio en el continente Europeo (e.g. prohibiendo Android devices en todo el continete por una nimiedad de patentes) costaría $1 millon bajo la UPC. ¿Suena algo que pueda ayudar a las pobres PYMEs europeas? Totalmente sin sentido.
El presidente de la FFII Benjamin Henrion, dice que esta ¨enfermo en cama leyendo los PDFs de UKIPO acerca de la ratificación de la Patente Unitaria, tiene dificultad para entender sus excepciones de software¨ (patentes de software).
¨No es por la enfermedad,¨ le dije, ¨es vago y confuso (como tal) por intento y diseño.¨ De esta manerea necesitará contratar un abogado por 400 euros por hora. .
“El gobierno intenta poner en lugar legislación para implementar la Corte Unitaria de Patentes en Enero del 2016.”
–UK-IPO¿Se esta convirtiendo la UK-IP del Reino Unido en un VASALLO del régimen de Battistelli? Parece que si. ¨Respuesta gubernamental a la Revisión Tecnica de la implementación de la UPC publicado hoy,¨ escribierón el Viernes, habiendo publicado ¨Legislacion Secundaria implementando la Corte Unitaria de Patentes¨.
Citando la pagina (no los PDFs): ¨La respuesta gubernamental da un análisis de repuestas a la Revisión Tecnica y llamado de Evidencia y perfila la dirección que el gobierno tomará. El gobierno intenta poner en lugar legislación para implementar la Corte Unitaria de Patentes en Enero del 2016.
La UK-IPO dice Henron, ¨menciona el costo promedio por una disputa sobre una UPC patente será un millón de libras estérlinas¨ (el acertadamente la llama ¨MATADOR DE PYMEs¨)
El ha preguntado a la UK-IPO, ¨¿Qué es esta excepción de software en la ley del Reyno Unido?¨ Más tarde añadió que ¨implicaría que patentes de software existen en primer lugar.¨ Ellas obviamente no deberían existir. Por todo lo que sabemos, la UK-IPO no esta incluso respondiendo. En realidan NUNCA me respondieron. Me encerraron tras un muro de piedra. NO LES IMPORTA EL PÚBLICO, y definitivamente desprecian la voz del público. Hubría una protesta en la OEP en frente de la Oficina Britanica en Alemania (Febrero 2015), pero el gobierno británico junto a Pinocho Battistelli. Los poderosos políticoas están confabulando contra los científicos.
Parece que la UK-IP se esta preparando para rendirse ante la OEP muy pronto (con la UPC). Las CORPORACIONES MULTINACIONALES se ESTÁN SALIENDO CON LA SUYA rápidamente GRACIAS AL RÉGIMEN DE BATTISTELLI. Los empleados de la OEP deberían saber A QUIEN PINOCHO BATTISTELLI ES LEAL; no tiene lealtad a sus empleados, a quienes ve como enemigos (muchos de ellos firmaron una petición en contra de las últimas acciones de la OEP). ¿Está Battistelli actuando como un político europeo o COMO UN CABILDEADOR DE LAS CORPORACIONES MULTINACIONALES? Aunado a Pinocho deberíamos llamarlo Judas. Si, Pinocho Judas Battistelli. █
“El no posee riqueza; la riqueza lo posee.”
–Benjamin Franklin
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