12.23.15
Managing IP Interview With Battistelli Shows That He’s Either Deluded or Dishonest About EPO Realities
Summary: Interpretation of the messages between the lines, regarding the Managing IP interview with the EPO’s President, Mr. Battistelli
Earlier today we explained why the Council's statement serves to disprove the narrative floated by Battistelli’s EPO. We are still unable to actually see/read what Battistelli told Managing IP (we’ve even tried Google cache, to no avail) because the original is behind a rather stubborn paywall. All paywalls, whether by intention or not, are a tool of soft censorship or limitation of access by particular audiences. They can help ensure that one only preaches to the choir and can hear back from the choir (patent lawyers in this case) because it’s hard if not impossible to examine what was said, especially as an outsider (to the microcosm) cannot become aware of what was actually said internally. It’s like a closed event/conference/meeting. Maybe like EPO-organised events which are either expensive or invite-only. It becomes an echo chamber.
Managing IP has just published some blog post with afterthoughts about this interview. These are publicly accessible, so we can examine and rebut what is essentially a sort of roundup.
“Battistelli told us he believes he has the support of the majority of staff for his reform programme,” according to the blog. At best, what Battistelli can say about “majority of staff” is that by a rather small (and ever-shrinking) margin, most staff is still afraid to publicly protest. That’s not an expression of consent, just a testament to the fear. Here is a direct quote: “I am convinced I have the support of the majority of staff, and the results we are obtaining would not be achieved by staff which are not fully behind this policy.”
“Battistelli is either deluded or he simply hopes that repeating this lie will help it stick (in the minds of those who are desperate enough to believe it).”This is nonsense. It’s a delusion. Battistelli is either deluded or he simply hopes that repeating this lie will help it stick (in the minds of those who are desperate enough to believe it).
The blog says: “As to where the Boards should be based, the president emphasised that to preserve the appearance of independence, they should be moved outside of the EPO premises, whether in Munich or another city. He also said it was necessary to have rules on conflicts of interest, to prevent members of the Boards going directly into private practice firms.”
Funny that EPO management worries about “private practice firms” in the boards when the management itself seems to be guilty (more on that in an upcoming series).
“Notice how Battistelli basically paints himself and the management as the “victims”.”“Battistelli acknowledged that the reputation of the EPO has been damaged by recent criticisms,” according to this blog. Well, that’s his fault. He blames the criticism rather than what the criticism is about/against.
Battistelli said: “It is true that politically this campaign has had some impact, we have to be realistic about that, and because of our protective roles we couldn’t indicate what was at stake. We will be able in the near future to inform the public on the kinds of attacks and behaviour we have been victims of.”
Notice how Battistelli basically paints himself and the management as the “victims”. Imagine the NSA painting itself, not the people whom it illegally spied on, as the victim. What a terrible PR strategy.
To quote further from the blog: “Disciplinary proceedings are now underway against some senior members of SUEPO, and Battistelli said he would follow the recommendations of the disciplinary committee.”
The “recommendations of the disciplinary committee” are basically a shadow of whatever Battistelli wants. It’s a mock trial, which Team Battistelli keeps trying to make secret not because it jeopardises the so-called ‘investigation’ because it embarrasses the accuser and shows what a laughable ‘trial’ is really happening (we have access to the texts and we have already refuted some ludicrous parts).
“If people want the hogwash, Managing IP will quite likely provide it.”To continue, again from the blog (quoting Battistelli: “There are some individual behaviours which are not acceptable and which need to be sanctioned, such as harassment cases. It is not legitimate to harass somebody because you are a staff representative.”
Complete nonsense! The so-called ‘harassment’ case is suggestive of the Hardon case, where something which happened almost two years ago suddenly (magically!) becomes relevant because Battistelli is determined to crush the unions by any means possible.
If people want the hogwash, Managing IP will quite likely provide it. Provided people are willing to pay Managing IP for access to pro-patents (or patent maximalism) articles.
Last but not least, the blog says: “We put as many of these [question] as we could to Battistelli, and there were no topics he declined to discuss” (except the questions we sent Managing IP). Did Managing IP even ask Battistelli any truly hard questions? █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
hr.pafnucy said,
December 23, 2015 at 10:32 am
If BB thinks that a majority supports him, how many times in the last years he went out from his premises to meet the EPO staff and talk to them personally?
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:47 pm
And without his private bodyguard, which I suppose are a testament to the fact that he knows staff dislikes him.