07.18.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Using (or milking) the Office for his personal purposes?
Things are not always as simple as they may seem
Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s agenda at the EPO is anything but beneficial to the EPO and suspicions that Battistelli’s overall agenda is transitioning to the UPC to further his goals grow feet
EIGHT years ago we wrote about vendor capture in relation to ISO. Individuals or companies sometimes take advantage of police departments (see famous example above), public institutions or even other companies and the EPO appears to become a good example of this.
Some anonymous voices openly allege that Battistelli is not only surrounding himself with French people (former colleagues, family members etc.) at the top-level management (astronomical salaries and job security) but is also serving French buddies of his in France (he is politically-affiliated, in defiance of ILO or EPO rules), looking to empower himself in Paris (several sources sent us rumours over the years about his pursued role inside UPC). The following new comment repeats what we too have been saying regarding the UPC and Battistelli’s controversial actions, only to be proven correct by EPO management. They even explicitly admitted to it when asked by Dr. Glyn Moody several months ago. Here is what the comment says about the board of appeals (which relate to DG3):
I have been suggesting for ages that BB [Benoît Battistelli] is busy “clearing the path” for the UPC and its seat in Paris. For as long as DG3 exists, some litigants might prefer to dispute validity in Munich rather than in Paris. How badly will that hinder the growth of a healthy caseload docket in Paris?
But now it seems that the UPC is dead. No docket then for Paris, in the foreseeable future.
Time for the AC to press BB to stop clearing the path, to change direction and reinvigorate DG3, so it can dispatch cases in reasonable time? Wake up industry. Put pressure on your governments to instruct their AC representative accordingly.
Here is another comment on the subject:
Let me just say this: it is going to be the UPC, it is going to be in Paris and the board of appeal members will have nothing to say about it. They will never get employed by the UPC. The council and the president agree, nothing can stop them.
This was, as it turns out, noted also in the German media, not just Ars Technica (the aforementioned article from Glyn Moody). To quote:
That is certainly the plan of BB & Co. as was revealed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in October 2015.
One alleged aim of the failed coup attempt against BB was “… to prevent the Office from facing the biggest change in its history: the transition to the single European patent and a new jurisdiction with the Court in Paris, including branch offices, also in Munich. The Enlarged Board would be replaced as soon as all States have ratified the agreement.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/europaeisches-patentamt-der-erfundene-skandal-1.2695424
Unfortunately in the meantime the Süddeutsche seems to have stopped reporting about EPO affairs:
http://techrights.org/2016/07/17/suddeutsche-and-epo-pr/
Battistelli’s attempt to ‘revolutionise’ the EPO for his own benefit goes quite a while back, also to his very appointment. “If you look at ILOAT 3699, it is about Bernard Paye,” one source told us, “the ex-head of Internal Audit, who was pushed aside because of the abolition of the Audit Committee, which he objected to.”
Something such as the Audit Committee existed for the function of oversight — something which Battistelli absolutely could not (and still cannot) stand — and he took little time — once he had seized power — to totally destroy it, as we first noted here in 2014 (the Audit Committee and independence of Internal Audit was abolished).
Internal Audit, as we noted before (years ago), is directly under Battistelli’s control now. We also mentioned this more recently, even a in relation to the EPO’s Investigative Unit. The story of how this came about must be recalled. Bernard Paye has now won his case against the Office, but not many people will have noticed (let alone remember him). “The ILOAT is pretty damning of the Office,” a source told us, and “the language is quite strong, “inconsistent arguments”, etc.”
“Battistelli’s attempt to ‘revolutionise’ the EPO for his own benefit goes quite a while back, also to his very appointment.”We spent some time converting this decision into HTML and adding highlights in yellow. This once again reminds us of the important of whistleblower protections at the Office. As the decision below helps reaffirm, Bernard Paye was assigned to (or offered) a fictitious post — a similar thing to what happened in Croatia when Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’ tries to get rid of people (we covered this before). He was effectively fired for not agreeing with Battistelli and his “yes men”. The UPC is mentioned there too, namely “the strategic responsibilities inherent in the new post of Senior Advisor for planning and preparation of the unitary patent” (it all boils down to the UPC quite so often).
The decision below was reached (not yet published) earlier this month, so it took several years to reach a conclusion, at which point the chance of redemption, justice etc. was rather hard to reason about. In fact, this long delay would likely serve as a deterrent against future such cases (complaints) and the compensation offered is only a sixth of what was requested, which makes this entire ordeal (long process) less than worthwhile, except maybe as a matter of principle and setting the record straight.
Here is the full decision’s text (in English this time, not French):
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif
International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal
Registry’s translation,
the French text alone
being authoritative.
P. (No. 2)
v.
EPO
122nd Session
Judgment No. 3699
THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Considering the second complaint filed by Mr B. Y. P. against the European Patent Organisation (EPO) on 20 June 2013 and corrected on 12 July, the EPO’s reply of 11 November 2013, the complainant’s rejoinder of 31 January 2014 and the EPO’s surrejoinder of 10 June 2014;
Considering Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal;
Having examined the written submissions and decided not to hold oral proceedings, for which neither party has applied;
Considering that the facts of the case may be summed up as follows:
The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him to a Senior Advisor post.
At the material time, the complainant held the grade A6 post of Head of the Internal Audit department, that is, Principal Directorate 0.6 of the European Patent Office, the EPO’s secretariat. When the President of the Office proposed that the Administrative Council abolish the Audit Committee – one of its subsidiary bodies – the complainant expressed his disagreement. On 30 June 2011 the Administrative Council adopted decision CA/D 4/11 abolishing the Audit Committee with immediate effect.
By a letter of 21 July 2011, the President of the Office informed the complainant that his public “opposition” to the decision to abolish Judgment No. 3699 the Audit Committee made it impossible for him to continue as Head of Internal Audit, and that he considered that this was no longer in the interests of the service. Under Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the EPO, the President therefore proposed to transfer the complainant to a post of “special advisor” and asked him to submit his “reactions” by 1 August.
A vacancy notice for the grade A6 post of Senior Advisor planning and preparation of the unitary patent – which was to be filled by way of a transfer – was published on 6 September. On 16 September the complainant wrote to the President stating that he did not intend to apply for that post as he did not believe he had the necessary qualifications and experience. By a letter of 29 September the complainant was notified that in the Office’s interests the President had decided to transfer him to the post with effect from 1 October. On 14 December 2011 the complainant filed an internal appeal against this decision, submitting that it constituted an abuse of authority, a hidden disciplinary sanction and an affront to his dignity. He requested the cancellation of the decision, his reinstatement in a post that corresponded to his qualifications, experience and level, and redress for the injury that he claimed to have suffered.
The Internal Appeals Committee, to which the matter was referred, delivered its opinion on 14 December 2012 after hearing both parties. Considering in particular that the complainant’s transfer to a post that did not really correspond to grade A6 had injured his dignity, the Committee unanimously recommended that the President cancel the decision to transfer the complainant, award the complainant 25,000 euros in moral damages and take prompt action to reassign him to a genuine grade A6 post with a view to allowing the complainant to end his career on a positive note. Failing this, the complainant should be awarded additional damages of 5,000 euros. By a letter of 25 March 2013, which constitutes the impugned decision, the complainant, who had retired on 31 December 2012, was notified of the President’s decision to dismiss his internal appeal.
The complainant asks the Tribunal to rule that the impugned decision to transfer him to the post of Senior Advisor was unlawful and to award him 60,000 euros in compensation for the moral injury he considers he has suffered as well as 2,000 euros in costs.
The EPO asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
CONSIDERATIONS
1. In his complaint, the complainant asks the Tribunal to rule that the decision of the President of the Office to transfer him to a post of senior advisor unlawful and to award him 60,000 euros in compensation for moral injury as well as costs in the amount of 2,000 euros. In support of his complaint, he submits that his “transfer constituted an abuse of authority and a hidden disciplinary sanction and that the post to which [he] was transferred was fictitious and was created to suit the circumstances
in violation of the applicable procedures”. He further submits that the post in question was not commensurate with his grade.
2. The EPO denies that the decision to transfer the complainant was unlawful. It further submits that, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, he was transferred to a post with grade A6 duties in keeping with his qualifications and experience.
3. This case presents two material questions. The first is that of whether or not the complainant’s transfer was wrongful. The second relates to the grade of the duties which the complainant was assigned; in other words, did the post of Senior Advisor to which the complainant was appointed correspond to a grade A6 position?
4. According to the complainant, his transfer was wrongful and was in fact a hidden sanction. He adds that the post to which he was assigned was “fictitious”. The defendant submits that the complainant was transferred in the EPO’s interests in light of his continuing opposition to the abolition of the Audit Committee.
5. Although the complainant believes that his transfer was a hidden sanction, he does not bring any evidence in support of this allegation. His submissions merely contain an unsubstantiated assertion that his transfer to the contested post of Senior Advisor was a hidden sanction for his refusal to apply for that post. Furthermore, in his rejoinder he writes that he has “never disputed the right of the President of the Office to order a transfer in the Organisation’s interests, of which he is the judge”. There is no doubt here as to the Organisation’s interests: as the defendant argues persuasively, “it was no longer in the Office’s interest for the complainant to remain as Head of Internal Audit given that his continuing opposition to the abolition of the Audit Committee demonstrated a marked divergence of opinion regarding the conditions in which Internal Audit was to operate and its position”. Moreover, the evidence shows that, contrary to what the complainant asserts, the post to which he was assigned involved duties that were real – irrespective of their level, which will be addressed below – and the post cannot therefore be regarded as “fictitious”.
6. The complainant submits that the post of Senior Advisor to which he was transferred was not commensurate with his A6 grade. In this regard, he stated in his internal appeal that Senior Advisor posts were “posts held by staff members who held grade A4 at most and who [did] not exercise any authority”. He added that the grade A6 responsibilities outlined in the “Job Descriptions” appended to the Service Regulations, according to which “[t]he Officer runs a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields or is chairman of a Board of Appeal [and] duties primarily consist in developing [...] authoritative guidelines [...] and taking decisions in particularly difficult and important cases”, were not involved in the task assigned to him, which merely consisted in “conduct[ing] an in-depth analysis of the situation and draft[ing] proposals”. The EPO maintains that the complainant’s duties in his new role of Senior Advisor corresponded to grade A6.
7. It is to no avail that the EPO attempts to show that the complainant’s duties were of grade A6 level. First, it invites the Tribunal to interpret the job description appended to the Service Regulations liberally as, in the defendant’s view, it would not be possible for the Office to perform its functions properly “if it were obliged to apply the generic post descriptions strictly to the letter, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case in question”. Next, it poses the question, tailored to this particular case, of “whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant’s new role was reasonably commensurate with his grade”, and not that of whether it corresponded exactly to grade A6 duties. Lastly, it asserts that “the strategic responsibilities inherent in the new post of Senior Advisor for planning and preparation of the unitary patent, though involving no management responsibilities, were nevertheless at the same level as those of a grade A6 post”. These inconsistent arguments, submitted by the defendant to convince the Tribunal that the complainant’s new duties were at grade A6 level, poorly disguise the fact that this was not at all the case. The defendant itself acknowledges in its submissions that “the complainant’s new role did not entail all of the characteristics of a grade A6 post according to the generic description provided in the Service Regulations”. The Tribunal concludes that the complainant’s new duties were not commensurate with grade A6. The complainant did not run a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields; he was neither a Principal Director nor a Chairman of a Board of Appeal; he could not take decisions in particularly difficult or important cases. Hence, the contested transfer decision must, as the complainant requests, be ruled unlawful.
8. The EPO will be ordered to pay the complainant the sum of 10,000 euros as redress for the moral injury incurred as a result of that decision.
9. As the complainant succeeds in part, he is entitled to an award of costs, set at 2,000 euros. For the above reasons,
1. The impugned decision is quashed and the contested transfer decision is declared unlawful.
2. The EPO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros in moral damages.
3. It shall also pay him 2,000 euros in costs.
In witness of this judgment, adopted on 28 April 2016, Mr Claude Rouiller, President of the Tribunal, Mr Patrick Frydman, Judge, and Ms Fatoumata Diakité, Judge, sign below, as do I, Dražen Petrović, Registrar.
Delivered in public in Geneva on 6 July 2016.
(Signed)
CLAUDE ROUILLER
PATRICK FRYDMAN
FATOUMATA DIAKITÉ
DRAŽEN PETROVIĆ
Battistelli’s abuses may as well end up bankrupting/fossilising the Office (compensations, millions spent on buying the media for UPC promotion and setting up lobbying events). He has already, based on reports made to us, reduced demand for EPO services as stakeholders recognise the sharp decline in quality of service and thus go elsewhere or recommend/advise clients to turn to national offices etc.
There are more cases like the above and we intend to mention or properly cover them in the future as they serve to highlight/establish Team Battistelli’s guilt. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Here’s why…
Summary: A reminder of where the EPO stands on social issues and why the latest so-called ‘social’ report is nothing but paid-for propaganda for Battistelli’s political ambitions
THE EPO is in a state of crisis (as even the entire Organisation admits). The President has 0% approval rating and there is growing unrest. Later this year EPO management will probably be chastised by the Dutch Supreme Court (and Dutch politicians, never mind Dutch media) and another trial at The Hague began on Friday. There are clearly several cases against EPO management at The Hague right now. The latter is about the attack on staff representatives (more of them silently got sacked recently) and the former about a variety of issues less severe (but nonetheless ones for which the EPO was found guilty).
EPO workers, we recently learned, are already doing fund-raisers for a post-Battistelli party. This party would probably take a while to actually take place and additionally, his departure isn’t the end of it all. He has polluted the entire management rank. It’s full of his cronies now. If Battistelli’s craziness and his paranoia continue to escalate, soon enough he’ll hire people with jobs skills like “eating” to test (or taste) his food for him. He has become just about as insane as Erdoğan or other tyrants which history turned into iconic symbols (not just Napoleon). “Still no comment from the EPO President about the coup attempt in Turkey,” one person wrote earlier today. “Doesn’t he care about what is going on there? Let us not forget that Turkey is an EPO member state!!!”
The EPO has said nothing about Turkey but instead it has just released a pile of lies (they call it “social report” rather than “social study”, maybe to help dodge — SEO-wise — the negative association with the long-malign ‘study’). We wrote about this study many times before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3]. Insiders have warned about how it was done and why it would tell lies once released. Right now the EPO's PR team and its outside help (FTI Consulting, with over a million Euros of EPO budget) must be pressuring journalists to repeat their ‘social’ lies. How many will they manage to bamboozle and/or co-opt? That remains to be seen.
It typically takes a day or two for the EPO to mention its blog posts or “news” [sic] in its Twitter account. Over at Twitter today the EPO is promoting this event in Madrid, Spain. In spite of or because Spain is a thorn in the EPO’s side? Remember that Spain is one of the biggest barriers to the UPC and mind the fact that “EPO management is still busy with the UPC,” according to this new comment. Here is the comment in full: “People discuss the future of the board of appeal as it it had a future. The president said it many times: in his mind, there is no need for the board of appeal with the UPC. The board of appeal members missing have not been replaced in the past years (just check how many posts are still vacant) and will not be replaced. The move to another place is classical in French politics, just check how it was done at French Telecom (it’s in the press): they moved people around to harass them and force them to resign. The EPO management is still busy with the UPC, BTW. They believe brexit is not a problem.”
“This so-called ‘social’ report (propaganda to mislead about the management’s antisocial behaviour) is just the latest distraction.”The EPO can ignore Brexit all it wants, but it pretty much rendered the UPC dead (or dying, or in a limbo for several years to come). Looking beyond the failed UPC, Sweden opens a new specialised court of its own. “A new era for the Swedish intellectual property market will be ushered in on September 1 2016 with the opening of the Patent and Market court in Stockholm,” wrote a sister site of WIPR. “On the whole, Swedish participants in this year’s WTR 1000 research process are expecting the introduction of a specialised, IP-exclusive court to be an overwhelmingly positive development for their jurisdiction.”
Things are not working out so well for the EPO these days. This so-called ‘social’ report (propaganda to mislead about the management’s antisocial behaviour) is just the latest distraction. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.17.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
All Battistelli Needs Right Now is a Reichstag Fire or Parliamentarian Attack (Not Bicycles)
Original photo: Erdoğan, 2012
Summary: Pretexts for crackdown on law-abiding people or figureheads who are remote and independent the hallmark not only of Erdoğan but also the EPO’s President, Benoit Battistelli
THIS afternoon we took note of an analogy involving Erdoğan. It has gone viral today (if not yesterday). Battistelli, like Erdoğan, is taking advantage of emergency — real or perceived — to seize total control/endless power and crack down on potential competition/opponents while surrounding oneself by people who even mess around with a bailiff. OpenDemocracy called the coup d’état attempt against Erdoğan “Turkey’s Reichstag fire” and many people haven’t been missing the stunning similarities/parallels when it comes to the EPO. Earlier today someone wrote: “Just wait, the EPO President will probably condemn the Cout détat in Turkey, just wait…”
“…many people haven’t been missing the stunning similarities/parallels when it comes to the EPO.”Given how Battistelli, inherently a politician, takes advantage of political events to further his agenda (he last did this a few days ago [1, 2]), they rightly suspect he might spin this one too. As a side note, Fethullah Gülen, whom Erdoğan blames for the coup (in spite of him being half the globe away), alleges that this whole coup may have been staged (coordination at the top, but no knowledge of the plot among the troops down under).
“What an embarrassment to Turkish democracy and to the rule of law (or lack thereof) at the EPO.”Another person wrote: “The Frenchman Battistelli expresses heartfelt sympathy to the people of France. But only in English. Presumably for reasons of administrative efficiency. Who actually writes this sanctimonious bull***t, anyway? And who cares what the European Patent Office “firmly believes”? It’s just a patent office, FFS. Now eagerly anticipating Battistell’s statement expressing solidarity with President Erdogan.”
A nice analogy in this case can be highlighted here (“”Turkey’s Erdogan Expands Post-Coup Crackdown To Target Judges”) and many other articles about the coup. Battistelli and Erdoğan are both going after judges as if they are the root of all evil. What an embarrassment to Turkish democracy and to the rule of law (or lack thereof) at the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Relative apathy if not complete silence regarding the EPO at Süddeutsche Zeitung following reports of FTI Consulting’s deal expansion (media positioning in Germany), with hundreds of thousands of Euros (EPO budget) thrown at the controversial task
FOR THOSE WHO don’t know this already, Süddeutsche Zeitung is a Munich-based publication, so one might expect it to write about the EPO very frequently (the EPO is headquartered in Munich). There is no lack of EPO scandals to write about; there are — if anything — too many of them to keep abreast of. So where on Earth has Süddeutsche Zeitung gone? Panama? Mind the EPO connection…
Süddeutsche used to do some proper journalism regarding the EPO (e.g. [1, 2]), but as soon as FTI Consulting got involved a judge got defamed by Süddeutsche. It was never the same anymore. Was Süddeutsche ‘sabotaged’ by the Office, to put a spin on their ludicrous (and now infamous) headline? We don’t know for sure, but we heard stories…
A lot of the traditional/objective tone at Süddeutsche changed after the EPO had signed the FTI Consulting deal, later to be expanded specifically in Germany (for reputation laundering purposes, not necessarily at or just at Süddeutsche Zeitung). Around that time I made some private inquiries, as poor reporting gradually turned into silence (unwillingness to cover).
Here is one message that I sent them months ago:
BRINGING FORWARD / WIEDERVORLAGE
I would like to enquire, with humble and good intentions, why you have been silent about the demonstrations at the EPO in Munich, The Hague, and the general situation at the EPO. The media, including the media in Munich, has an obligation to inform the public about such issues.
Has the EPO been in contact or used pressure to affect your angle on this? If so, you are not alone. Please explain why there has been such a silence for a very long time; it’s not reasonable to just pretend nothing is happening at the EPO.
If it’s possible for somebody, e.g. Katja Riedel, to contact me (E-mail or phone) to explain the reasons for not publishing anything, that would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
I sent several more messages, but I have not received a response from Süddeutsche. I never did. However, someone told me that something had been going on internally at Süddeutsche. They probably just didn’t want to talk about it. If any of our readers might be willing to challenge their silence and get their explanation for it, please write to muenchen-region@sueddeutsche.de. We know for a fact that there is something nefarious therein and we leave it for readers to explore further. Maybe when they received enough such queries they will eventually feel compelled to respond. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Circulating around the World Wide Web today
Summary: Reminds you of someone?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Fraud, Patents, Rumour at 1:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli has a lot to fear if people actually get such protections
Whistleblower ist weder Datendieb noch Erpresser
Summary: EPO scandals are not publicly accessible or known to many people and not many such scandals are known at all because people are afraid of Battistelli’s Fabius Maximus strategies
THINGS at the EPO may seem to have calmed down (there are court proceedings for representatives to focus on, having prepared for a while), but there are many stories that still ought to be told. Some cannot be told. Some cannot be told just yet. Some just need further corroborating evidence. Publishing these in the form of rumours and presenting them as such is clearly permissible.
“Publishing these in the form of rumours and presenting them as such is clearly permissible.”Some time ago we learned from a reliable source (with track record of accuracy) about fraud at the EPO. We are talking about financial fraud here (like payment orders), but people are afraid to speak about it directly to the public, to the authorities, or to journalists. Having witnessed how Battistelli and his circle treat even the gentlest of critics, who can blame them? Battistelli engages in managerial terrorism. He created an atmosphere of so much fear that even people who have truly credible arguments and evidence to back it up with dare not speak to anyone about it.
In the case of fraud, there is a criminal nature to it and one’s ability (or courage) to step forward would typically depend the severity of the fraud and certainty of prosecution (vindicating the messenger). Under Battistelli’s terrifying regime it takes a lot of courage to speak out about such things. Maybe it’s just a matter of time. Typically, whistleblowers are protected by the law itself, but in Eponia lawlessness prevails (Battistelli and his minion even brag about it!). These whistleblowers should not really need any protection from the employer but from anticorruption entities (the EPO's press spokesperson came from one, effectively defecting); but what anticorruption entities are there inside Eponia? None. It’s just absurd. The EPO conveniently ignores national laws but at the same time it enforces employment embargo/sanctions on EPO staff after their departure from Eponia. It also legally threatens people outside Eponia, myself included.
We are pretty certain that there is fraud going on, but at this stage we have to classify this “rumour” (however strong) and revisit the claim if or when this becomes public knowledge. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 7:53 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No sólo la Corte Unificada de Patentes (UPC) se esta hundiéndo pero también su proponente en jefe, quien tal vez lleve a la Oficina y la Organización en su conjunto a la tumba consigo a no ser que su régimen nepotista sea detenido pacíficamente (a diferencia de Turquía actualmente)
Sumario: La última evidencia alrededor del hundimiénto de la reputación de la Epo y su calidad de trabajo, así como la caída del sistema que Battistelli trata forzadamente de imponer (una carrera al fondo)
La EPO se está preparando para el próximo evento de presión de Battistelli. Le costará (si sobrevive tanto tiempo en el trabajo) millones de euros. Oh, esperen, no … quien pagará sera la EPO, como de costumbre. ¿Qué le ha sucedido a la EPO? Incluso los hedores de marketing (casi no hay tweets de hoy y en el Tweet de ayer la verdad incomoda no se han incluido enlaces, sólo la habitual y bastante cursi pasarela fotográfica). Las personas me dicen (en privado) que la calidad de las patentes cayó en picado y algunas personas incluso han escrito sobre ello públicamente. Esto claramente no es la EPO que yo respetaba y escribí sobre (a veces de manera positiva) hace una década. Está rápidamente desapareciendo y si estamos esforzamonoss para salvar la EPO, entonces no estamos haciendo un trabajo muy eficaz hasta el momento. Mientras Battistelli más profundo se hunde, mayor será el daño causado y todavía se niega a renunciar, mientras que el Consejo de Administración no puede hacer su trabajo y que lo despidan. Eso es sólo la forma en mal estado y la Oficina de toda la organización se convirtió después de Battistelli (y su círculo) golpe de estado. “No sé”, escribió una persona hoy en día acerca de si Battistelli sólo quiere arruinar la Oficina. “Sin embargo, tengo mis sospechas de que el dinero puede estar en la raíz de todo esto.” Recuerde que los contratos de Battistelli se mantienen en secreto y la información que tenemos sobre su salario actual contradice lo que declaró públicamente. El presidente del Consejo Administrativo es cómplice de ocultar información acerca de esto, así ¿que tipo de supervisión es esta? Incluso la FIFA se parece a una institución de la integridad comparado con ella.
“El presidente del Consejo Administrativo es cómplice de ocultar información acerca de esto, así ¿que tipo de supervisión es esta?.”
Tomará mucho tiempo salvar a la EPO (quiero decir salvarla del golpe de estado), pero uno pueda pensar que lo que no se salvará es la UPC, por lo menos aquí en Gran Bretañá. Este ‘babe’ de Battistelli esta siendo “cortado” (usando el proverbio) antes de que nazca.
“Siguiéndo a Brexit,” dice IP Magazine, “la EPLIT ha urgido al gobierno a tomar los pasos necesarios en ratificar el Acuerdo de la UPC” (EPLIT es simplemente un grupo de parásitos egoístas y este artículo, que esta detrás de un muro, falla al no mencionar que la EPLIT se funde con el Equip UPC, i.e. aquellos que se benefician de su propia creación anti-democrática).
“Incluso la FIFA parece una organización de integridad comparado con ella (la EPO).”
Para citar el artículo: “Después de la votación en el Reino Unido junio» Brexit ‘, el Litigio Asociación Europea de Patentes (EPLIT) ha instado al gobierno del país a tomar las medidas necesarias para ratificar el Acuerdo Tribunal Unificado de Patentes (UPC)’ tan pronto como sea posible”.”
Una vez más están mostrando sus verdaderos colores y un desprecio absoluto por la democracia, la ley, y para las personas. Se trata de un robo de la democracia; que están tratando de robar la democracia con el fin de aumentar sus beneficios. Ni siquiera lo disimulan más.
“Un blog por mucho tiempo pro-UPC finalmente parece admitir que la UPC está en serios problemas.”
A decir verdad, la UPC está muriendo, por lo tanto, sus constructores están bastante nervioso. Han tratado de escribir la ley a puerta cerrada durante un número de años y todo se fué hacia abajo en llamas el mes pasado. El amiguismo es contraproducente en este caso.
Un blog por mucho tiempo pro-UPC finalmente parece admitir que la UPC está en serios problemas. Temprano hoy publico: “El Voto Brexit: ‘El camino preparado para el Sistema Unitario de Patentes pueda que no exista más’” [via]
Para citar una parte: “¿Puede el sistema de patente unitaria todavía entrará en vigor? Es atractivo y sin el Reino Unido o va a las empresas y no seguir con el sistema de patentes establecido en su versión vigente en este momento? Según el Dr. Axel Walz, co-fundador de la controversia IP Resolución Foro (IPDR) en Munich, estos temas se han discutido mucho entre los colegas alemanes después de la votación del Reino Unido de 23 de junio de 2016 al salir de la Unión Europea. En una entrevista con Kluwer Law IP Walz dijo que cree que es “cuando menos dudosa ‘si el Derecho de la UE permite el establecimiento de un sistema de patente unitaria con la inclusión de un país no miembro de la UE”.
Henrion escribió acerca de lo de arribaque “las compañías Europeas todavía estan protegidas de los efectos dañinos de la UPC especializada en patentes y troless de patentes…”
Bueno, necesitamos asegurarnos de que continúe de esa manera.
Acerca de la UPC y la EPO, una persona escribióen IP Kat:
¿Puedo sugerir que alguien desea comprobar cuál es la línea de la gestión de la EPO es en todo esto? El rumor era que la alta dirección podría estar preparándose para un retraso en la patente de la UE con consecuencias para otros proyectos/planes de trabajo. Eso puede ser un indicador de lo que va a ocurrir. La EPO no se dictan materias, pero será dependiente y tal vez bien informado.
Pues bien, la UPC está siendo cada vez más reconocido como un callejón sin salida por la comunidad jurídica/profesión, como mostramos aquí antes. Un día o dos más, hace dos artículos fueron publicados sobre este asunto. Uno fue titulado “¿Es Brexit una salida IP?” Dijo: “La patente unitaria, que se ha estado moviendo hacia la aprobación, prevé una patente única que puede concederse en todos los países miembros de la UE, con un solo Unificado Tribunal de la Patente de ejecución en toda la UE. Antes de la votación Brexit, se espera ampliamente que la patente unitaria y tribunal de patentes unificado se aplicarían a mediados de 2017. Sin embargo, es probable que la incertidumbre creada por el voto Brexit retrasará esta fecha de aplicación. Por otra parte, muchos analistas creen que el Reino Unido se es poco probable que se le permita participar en la patente unitaria y Unificado de Patentes Corte después de salir de la UE, ya que requeriría la UE para proporcionar el Reino Unido se con un beneficio sin sus correspondientes obligaciones de la UE “.
“El rumor dice que la alta gerencia esta preparando una demora en la Patentes de la UE con consecuencias hacia otros proyectos/mapas.”
–Anonymous
Otro nuevo artículo acerca de esto fue titulado “Brexit Causa Incertidumbre de IP para los Portafolios de los EE.UU.” y dice que “a corto plazo, la salida tendrá poco o ningún efecto sobre patentes. El Reino Unido es signatario de la Convención Europea de Patentes de 1973. Como tal, su sistema de patentes se rige por la Oficina Europea de Patentes (OEP). El EPC es un tratado separado de la UE. De hecho, países como Albania, Noruega y Suiza no son miembros de la UE, pero son estados miembros de la EPO. Del mismo modo, se prevé que el Reino Unido seguirá siendo un estado miembro de la EPO y patentes y proceso del Reino Unido seguirá siendo gobernado por el EPC.
“Dicho esto, era esperado que la UE ponga en marcha el denominado sistema de patente europea unitaria y un Tribunal Unificado de Patentes (UPC) para resolver problemas relacionados con la patente unitaria. En virtud de este nuevo sistema de patente unitaria, una patente única de la UE emitiría de la EPO, una protección de patentes en toda la UE. Esto contrasta con el actual sistema de EPO, en virtud del cual la OEP realiza un examen centralizado y luego devuelve la solicitud a las oficinas nacionales de patentes individuales, que luego emiten su propia patente nacional, que confiere a sus respectivos conjuntos de derechos de patente. Se anticipó que el EPC recibiría suficientes firmas de ratificación para entrar en vigor en algún momento en el año 2017.
“Sólo quieres una justificación para la existencia de la UPC”
–Anonymous
“Sin embargo, los términos del contrato de EPC requieren Reino Unido ratificación del acuerdo con el fin de entrar en vigor. Si el Reino Unido se encuentra fuera de la UE, se espera razonablemente que ese lanzamiento de la patente unitaria y la UPC se puede retrasar. Estamos a la espera de saber de los respectivos negociadores EPC qué efecto específico tendrá la retirada formal. Por ejemplo, el acuerdo puede ser modificado para eliminar el requisito de la adhesión del Reino Unido, y proceder con otro país como uno de los tres firmantes requeridos. Por otra parte, y en función de cómo otras dos veces y las negociaciones multilaterales progreso, también es posible que el Reino Unido podría permitirse a unirse al sistema de patente unitaria sin ser miembro de la UE. En consecuencia, debido al futuro incierto del sistema de patente unitaria, los clientes de planificación para tomar ventaja de ese sistema debe reevaluar sus estrategias futuras de presentación”.
Volviendo a IP Kat, escribió una persona de una manera lengua en la mejilla: “¿Quieres única justificación para la existencia de la UPC. Usted es un verdadero europeo. Presidente Juncker agreguelo a su lista de tarjetas de Navidad”.
Otra persona hizo una especie de falsificación (utopía) una declaración de la agenda de la UPC y alguien escribió que “UPC creará un único punto de fallo para las patentes de software en Europa,” lo que demuestra que no sólo los abogados de patentes saben “están involucrados en este la discusión en esta etapa. En respuesta a “sí representan toda la industria británica” (sobre un montón de patentes maximalistas) la persona dijo: “Lo siento, mi empresa no era parte de ella. La UPC creará un único punto de fallo para las patentes de software en Europa, y los ladrones de patentes difícilmente puede negar eso. De hecho, deberíamos ir en modo de demostración en banda contra la UPC como mi compañía hizo por el pasado fallida directiva de patentes de software”.
“…deberíamos ir en modo de demostración en banda contra la UPC como mi compañía hizo por la pasada fallida directiva.”
-anonimo
Observe la parte que dice “deberíamos ir en modo de demostración en banda contra la UPC como mi compañía hizo por el pasado no directiva de patentes de software.” ¿Es 2005 de nuevo? ¿Alguna vez será?
Un comentarista anónimo dijo: “¿De qué estás hablando? No está claro para mí si usted quiere o no quiere patentes de software. No me gustaría que usted me representa… “
Bueno, claramente este último comentario no es un desarrollador de software… ningún desarrollador de software que conozco que quería o defendido a las patentes de software. Mientras más profesionales de software se involucran en este debate (sobre la UPC) en esta etapa, mejor. Lo que queda de la UPC ayudará a asegurar que está enclavada dentro de un ataúd para bien; no hay más cambios de nombre y embellecedora (para la comercialización de nuevos políticos europeos que no tienen ni idea sobre estos asuntos).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 6:30 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Dada la seriedad de estos asuntos, ¿Se molestará publicamente alguien en denunciar/desafíar las mentiras de abajo?
Sumario: Los terribles ataques hace un dia en Francia están siéndo explotados por el caradura de Benoît Battistelli para comedia negra o un verdaderamente absurda afirmación en la sección de “noticias” de la EPO
Cada vez que hay un incidente terrorista en Europa la EPO emite una declaración cursi ya sea desde Battistelli, sobre Battistelli, o citando Battistelli. Ellos están tratando de enmarcar Battistelli como una especie de líder simpático heroico que protege a su personal del terror y todas sus atrocidades (su derróchadora guardia pretoriána) es de alguna manera justificada “por el terrorismo!” Se ha convertido en una tradición tan común que esta mañana he predicho que sería suceda en cuestión de horas y pronto resultó que yo estaba en lo cierto. Sólo tomó muy poco tiempo para que Battistelli lleve a cuestas los incidentes terroristas de nuevo (advertencia: epo.org enlace, puede facilitar el seguimiento de las sus galletas/direcciones IP) y la redacción en ella era hipócrita al extremo.
“Ellos están tratándo duro de retratar a Battistelli como una clase de líder simpatético que proteje a sus empleados contra el terrorismo y sus atrocidades (su derrocadora guardia pretoriana) es de alguna manera justificada “por el terrorismo!””
“Simplemente patentel los ataques terroristas,” escribió Petra Kramer, “de seguro que detendrá a ISIS. Suélten a los trolles de patentes. Enjuicien a los terroristas!”
“Desvergonzado y patético que Battistelli use tan terrible evento para diseminar sus mentiras,” escribió otra persona, añadiéndo: “falla EPICA!”
Benjamin Henrion se rió en la parte que dice que la EPO cree en una sociedad abierta, libre e inclusive basada en los conceptos de libertad, igualdad y justicia después de que señále esto. Alguién a quien la la EPO matoneó con falsos reclamos de marcas respondió con “si, y yo creo en una sociadad abierta e inclusiva donde la cerveza fluira de toda y cada una de las fuentes ;)”
Para aquellos que no han estado siguiendo esta saga lo suficiente, recuerden que a Battistelli le gusta hacerce la victima. Es su estrategia a largo plazo.
“Suelten a los trolles de patentes. Enjuicien a los terroristas!”
–Petra Kramer
Para entender como ”Battistelli ordeña los ataques terroristas varias veces al año, vean nuestros artículos anteriores acerca de sus esfuerzos oportunistas anteriores. La OEP justifica la opresión al afirmar que está bajo ataque y ahora se dice que Battistelli “cree en una sociedad abierta e inclusiva basada en los principios fundamentales de la libertad, la igualdad y la justicia.”
Sí, Battistelli dice creer en “la libertad, la igualdad y la justicia” – en el mismo día en que hay audiencias en La Haya con respecto a los abusos de Battistelli! No es algo que no tenga precio? Al momento no podría ser mejor, porque Battistelli lucha activamente contra la justicia y se niega a obedecer la ley (o incluso sentencias de los tribunales más altos). Se podría decir que esto es sólo la última de las muchas mentiras de Battistelli. Para decirlo suavemente …
“Desvergonzado y patético que Battistelli use tan terrible evento para diseminar sus mentiras…”
–Anonymous
No es este nuevo comentario sobre Battistelli y su propio abuso de la justicia. Se dice que Battistelli “cruzó una línea que ningún Presidente de la EPO debe cruzar nunca. Después de dos años se le ocurrió una reforma de la Junta de que “no es perfecta” (un bonito eufemismo decir que es claramente mala). Con respecto a los otros puntos de la resolución del Consejo parece que él tampoco lo llevamos.
“Entonces lo que pasó en el último Consejo? ¿Se chantajeó a la CA diciéndole”¿Quieres una reforma de la BoA, pero no voy a darle una mejor”
“En lugar de decir” Gracias por su servicio que ahora vamos a buscar a alguien que es apto para el trabajo y también podemos elaborar una reforma razonable “los miembros de la CA probablemente dijeron” Qué bueno que nos dé alguna cara -ahorrándonos enmiendas menores! Aprobamos su reforma, ya que podría haber sido peor”.
“El último Consejo era un mínimo histórico para sus miembros, pero me temo que lo peor puede venir en el futuro ahora que BB [Battistelli] es consciente de que puede obligarlos a hacer lo que quiera.”
Escribimos sobre esto antes. “A mí me parece como si él [Battistelli] tiene un curso establecido para destruir la oficina”, dijo otro comentario. Para citar el comentario completo: “Si entiendo lo que está diciendo, algo es más importante Battistelli que el órgano de apelación. ¿Qué es? ¿Qué está tratando de lograr? Estoy pidiendo a la pregunta, porque realmente me pregunto. A mí me parece como si estuviera en un curso establecido para destruir la oficina, pero esto no puede ser. ¿Qué interés habría en eso? Entonces, ¿dónde nos dirigimos a? ¿Cómo será la Oficina dentro de cinco años?”
Cualquier justicia para las patentes sería difícil de entender o de confianza cuando la propia EPO es una burla total de jueces (incluso en La Haya). Hablando de la justicia patente, una decisión justa se ha volcado y un artículo publicado al respecto lo siguiente: “Las patentes de bivalirudina (Angiomax) fueron confirmadas por un tribunal federal tras un fallo anterior que no eran válidos. El laboratorio de la Compañía de Medicamentos dice que está “considerando todas las opciones … con respecto a Hospira, Mylan, y otros genéricos.”
Si Battistelli estuviese frente a este corte federal, no entraría en pánico. Él no, después de todo, creen que él tiene que respetar el estado de derecho y las órdenes judiciales se obedecen. Pero bueno, el día de hoy, dijo creer en “la libertad, la igualdad y la justicia” sólo porque él y su estrategia de maninpulación de los medios (o su adecuada narrativa engañosa).
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