11.10.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
POTUS Operandi: Shoot the messenger, then add insult to injury
Summary: The indefensible attacks on unions at the European Patent Office give growing room for concern, even among French politicians who see the EPO’s President abusing French staff
THE IMAGE above is of Claudine Lepage, whom we mentioned here before in relation to her complaints about Battistelli. Cordery too expressed concerns about what happened at The Hague. French politicians grow truly concerned and in this case Battistelli’s casualty is French too, which makes it somewhat of a unique case.
A Diaspora* user called “accolade” has provided us with a translation of Lepage’s latest writing on the subject and it goes like this:
Mood notes: the President of the EPO has struck again!
Posted on November 8, 2016 by admin
A staff representative, Laurent Prunier, has just been sacked, one more!
His crime? Having taken seriously his role as staff representative.
When is this going to stop? Let’s be clear: probably not before Benoît Battistelli, the current president, leaves.
How a European organism of a recognized quality and efficiency can mistreat its employees without any respect for international law work? In fact, the status of the EPO does not formally submit it to the social laws of the country in which it operates but is EPO an lawlessness area where arbitrariness reigns supreme?
Why doesn’t France use its influence to remind Mr. Battistelli to his basic duties? His behavior and the resulting crisis of governance are extremely damaging to the image of France just at a moment when the EPO is facing strong competition in the field of intellectual property.
Benoît Batistelli must leave so the European Office find a peaceful social climate again!
Someone has meanwhile leaked to us an internal staff document that provides additional information. As we suspected, Mr. Prunier is being punished severely because “he wholeheartedly and consistently opposed the policies and certain decisions of Mr Battistelli and Ms Bergot.”
Here is the document describing what happened, with minor redactions:
9 November 2016
su16125cp – 0.3.2
Dismissal of Laurent Prunier
Munich, Friday 4 November 2016: Mr Battistelli dismisses Laurent Prunier, elected member of the CSC and secretary of SUEPO The Hague.
The tenor of Communiqué 9 that Mr Battistelli published the same day on the Intranet seems only to confirm that “communicating” is not about telling the truth. We wonder how many colleagues – at least among those still reading his Intranet announcements – will be genuinely convinced of the veracity of Mr Battistelli’s incredible story1. It seems that interested circles outside the Office have already taken a very different view on the matter: see for example the latest publications on the EPO of The Register or IPKat.
One thing is sure: Mr Battistelli clearly continues down a path to union suppression. To date, since January 20162:
- he has fired three SUEPO officials: Elizabeth Hardon and Ion Brumme in Munich; now Laurent Prunier in The Hague;
- he has downgraded another one: Malika Weaver in Munich;
- he is targeting at least two other officials in The Hague.
This is absolutely unprecedented in the world of International Organisations. If Mr Battistelli is ever remembered by anyone within IP circles in the next decade for reasons other than the negative impact his policies have on the quality of our patents, then it will surely be for his “union busting” actions.
In March 2016 and after several years of the deepest social crisis ever experienced in the EPO, the Administrative Council (AC) passed unanimously a resolution (CA/26/16) requesting Mr Battistelli not to take any decision in any disciplinary cases pending the submission to the AC of proper reforms on investigations and disciplinary procedures. During the last AC meeting (held on 12 and 13 October), many influential AC delegations told him again that they were expecting him to fully respect the constraints of the AC resolution and suspend all on-going procedures.
Mr Battistelli wilfully did exactly the opposite, publicly ridiculing the AC.
_________
1 A story that Mr Battistelli has been telling many times in the past years, also publicly.
2 We do not forget that before 2016, Mr Battistelli downgraded Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund, our two colleagues appointed by the Staff Committee on the Internal Appeals Committee until 2014; Before that, a dozen of staff representatives and union officials got a Warning in their personal file for sending emails to more than 50 colleagues.
Were this to happen anywhere else other than the EPO, Mr Battistelli and his crew would have already been sent packing by their bosses, something that the AC can3 and should do. Now that Mr Battistelli has dismissed Laurent, will the delegations finally realize that it is their capacity to control the organisation that is now questioned by all, both inside and outside the EPO? Are they going to finally act? Or will they continue to procrastinate, de facto conceding that Mr Battistelli controls them instead of they control him?
Laurent cannot share any of the details of his case without risking being further attacked abusively and sanctioned for breach of confidentiality. However, we trust his defence that he never harassed anyone, even less the alleged victim. Laurent and his counsels have informed us that:
- the accusations were malicious;
- the whole procedure was a farce exhibiting all possible violations of due process and basic defence rights;
- the charges finally laid against him were raised by a top manager and protégé of Mr Battistelli, not by the alleged victim.
Laurent’s real mistake appears to be that he wholeheartedly and consistently opposed the policies and certain decisions of Mr Battistelli and Ms Bergot. He is being made to pay a very high price for having done his job of staff representative and union official so efficiently. Not only has he been sacked, but to add insult to injury, he is now being defamed in front of his 7000 colleagues. The communiqué depicts him as a serial harasser who fully deserves the punishment inflicted upon him whilst at the same time he is deprived the right of reply, i.e. to publically uncover the truth hidden for all the reasons mentioned above.
[...]
Spontaneous, public protests at all sites culminated in Munich where 800 colleagues expressed their solidarity with Laurent by participating in a flash demo on Monday. Other actions and demos will be organised soon to continue to express our full support to Laurent and other SUEPO officials persecuted by Mr Battistelli. We will keep you posted.
______
3 The AC is the appointing authority and disciplinary body for the President of the Office.
Someone from the EPO has meanwhile told us that “Battistelli trying to defend the undefendable?” [sic] This was said in reference to what we published in the afternoon. “I couldn’t agree more with the following statement,” added this person, quoting “It’s like a whole diarrhea of false statements” (including defamation of the accused).
This is typical. Watch how Team Battistelli defamed even a judge. These people are void of any morals or principles. They’re thugs.
We kindly ask readers to remember that in this year’s EPO lies should be assumed in every statement made by the Office. This has become so routine that it damages the reputation of the Office very severely and it had us compare Battistelli to Pinocchio a lot more than once. The man is an embarrassment to France and his management team, which comprises a lot of French people, does no favour to the country’s image (nepotism, busting of unions, deception and so on).
Battistelli: Digging the EPO’s Grave Again (DEGA). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Translation of the new article from Heise, revealing some new bits of information about union-busting activity in The Hague
EARLIER today we published a call for translations, after we had gotten a translation from Skarbrand in Diaspora* as it turns out. It’s a translation of the article from Heise and although not perfect (especially not the terminology which was somewhat lost in translation), it does contain some relatively new information.
European parliament fires more union workers
picture text: Again demonstration of employees in front of the European Patent Agency in Munich. (picture: dpa, Frank Leonhardt)
After the heads of the in-house union Suepo in Munich lost their jobs, the leader of the EPA (European Patent Agency) fires the financial secretary of employee-representation in The Hague. Approximately 800 workers demonstrate against it.
Despite multiple intern conferences to brighten the working atmosphere, the struggle in the EPA wont stop. On Monday in-house union Suepo called again on short notice for demonstration. Insiders say around 800 people joined at the agency-seat in Munich. Reason for the action: EPA president Benoît Battistelli fired Suepo financial secretary Laurent Prunier in the Hague last week.
Battistelli against union
Heise Online stated the EPA leaders accused Laurent Prunier, during his written call to protest, of pressuring and harassing an employee-board member in the Netherlands capitol. In contrast the union says that there was never an official complaint. The appropriate international labour-court has already clearly stated, that intern employee differences have to be handled among each other, without interference of the agencies management.
In January during an disciplinary inquiry against three union workers (which seemed to have spied on a special investigation unit) Battistelli imposed strict sanctions: Suepo leader Elizabeth Hardon and her predecessor Ion Brumme were laid off, additionally the treasurer was degraded. Suepo fears now that the intention behind this blow is “to destroy” the union. As foreign institution, German law is not applicable to the EPA.
Unrest in the workforce
Because of unrest in the workforce the European Patent Organisation (EPO), which carries the EPA, called upon Battistelli to “lay low”. The president has to ensure that “the disciplinary enquiry not only has to be fair, it must also be perceived as such” according to the Communique. Possibilities for this are external examination or mediation.
It is stated in the document that the Frenchman has to inform the supervisory board “with appropriate detail” till after the trial and before other disciplinary enquiries. The controllers also demand suggestions to improve trust of the appropriate actions. There should be an agreement with the union “without precondition and the possibility for all topics in future discussions”.
Frenchman Battistelli is no ordinary person. There’s something irregular about him. “Regarding your latest post referring to Battistelli’s increasingly erratic
behaviour,” one source told us, “I heard that he caused something of an éclat at the AIPPI conference back in September, where he gave a speech. It seems that he was adamant that he should sit flanked by his two bodyguards at the banquet’s officials table.”
Our source for this said it is better to treat this as gossip, but either way, it would not be the first time we heard such stories (or worse). Some we cannot even publish as it would jeopardise sources. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Trusting businessmen in suits to run an Office which is centered around science
Summary: Battistelli hits back at IAM’s dissent with an unprecedented volume of lies, European media catches up with union busting by Battistelli, and staff of the EPO expresses frustration with everything at the Office under Battistelli’s incompetent management
WHAT a gross liar the President of the EPO has become. It’s not even funny, it’s just utterly disgusting. First Chile had a 9/11 (regime change by coup), then came 11/9 in Berlin, then 9/11 in New York and now 11/9 again in the US. Coinciding with 11/9 in the US we now have Liar Supreme Battistelli drooling lies into the pages of IAM — a site he loves so much to cite in support of his lies.
“Coinciding with 11/9 in the US we now have Liar Supreme Battistelli drooling lies into the pages of IAM — a site he loves so much to cite in support of his lies.”Several days ago IAM’s editor in chief seemed to have had enough. He or a colleague said that Battistelli had scored an "own goal" and later wrote an entire article about it. Battistelli with his infamous temper must have blown a fuse at the sight of that and he pressured IAM to print a lot of lies without questioning or fact-checking. This new ‘article’ is the biggest and densest pile of lies I have come across since the buildup for the Iraq invasion (like those horrible articles from Judith Miller or tweets from Donald Trump about climate science). To quote just one fragment from his lies and revisionism:
On another point, I also strongly refute any accusations of “management by intimidation”. To try to base the discussions on facts rather than rumours, we asked a team of renowned, experienced external consultants to analyse the Office’s situation with respect to our financial and social situation, and health and well-being. The results show a strong improvement compared to 2010, with some remarkable achievements and some areas of progress. They were shared with all the stakeholders (staff, managers, staff representatives, trade union and AC delegations) and will continue to be debated with all in order to define our next priorities.
There are too many lies in this response to rebut one by one. It’s like a whole diarrhea of false statements and cleaning it all up with detailed evidence is a monumental (time-consuming) task. We sure hope that Joff Wild believes none of that stuff he had just clicked “Publish” on.
“Looking at IP Kat today, we still find some distressed calls for intervention.”Elsewhere in the media we now have some press coverage from Germany (once again it’s Stefan Krempl, who knows this conflict very well) and a politician’s rant from France (not the first time she speaks of these issues). Can native German and French speakers help us get a decent translation of both articles/columns? We strive to maintain an accurate and complete record of it all. Can anyone please translate these and securely send these to us for publication?
Looking at IP Kat today, we still find some distressed calls for intervention. Things are becoming rather grim at the Office and one person told us today that “Not My President” is an apt description of the sentiment inside the Office. It’s actually the bigoted President who encourages violence and intolerance, not the staff (his victims). “What is really going on, nobody gives a damn,” this one person said, as the management’s abuse just carries on and there’s no sign of it coming to an end any time soon. Here is the full comment:
In December, the AC will let BB do what he wants. They’ll back down, like they’ve always done since they unanimously reelected him. They know what they’re doing. They want him to stay there (as well as his VPs) to introduce the pension reform that he promised to deliver next year and which ALL delegates and their ministers want dearly, especially the “big” member states. When they tell BB to calm down, it’s just for the show, or maybe, for some, because they’re a bit annoyed by the bad press. When they say that they want it to look like there is justice, that’s exactly what they mean: it has to LOOK all right, nothing more. Because when it does not, some ministers get some embarrassing phone calls from journalists and that must stop. What is really going on, nobody gives a damn. If you want to predict what they will do, just ask yourself: what is the easiest thing to do ?
You’re on your own. Close ranks and hang on…
President Battistelli “has an history of simply ignoring the Council requests,” notes the following new comment:
So what happens next? Maybe that is the question that should be asked?
What happens if the Council decides to put some pressure on the President (for example by requesting cooperation under Article 20 ppi as suggested here)? Wouldn’t the President continue business as usual? He has an history of simply ignoring the Council requests, hasn’t he? It is quite naive from Merpel to believe that Article 20 would have any effect. Why would Battistelli care?
What happens if the Council does nothing? Battistelli simply continues till the end of his period and the member States simply stay with their arms crossed doing nothing because of immunity?
I am afraid, the most likely future is that Battistelli will simply carry on for the next 2 years, firing whomever he does not like every other month, continue to give well paid administrative posts to whomever he wants and spend money on buildings and computer system without any real control.
Here is a note about erosion of patent quality — a subject that has intrigued us for as long as it became and remained a public issue (several years ago):
If the EPO re-starts examining applications properly, i.e. to a high standard, including those I prosecute, I may be more supportive of anti-PB sentiment. However, improvements need to be made, whether or not PB is attempting to imprive anythig.
On an individual level, I am fully supportive of protecting people from unfair treatment I get a lot of myself.
Here is one response to this:
Chicken and egg. As long as BB dictates, examiners cannot change their standards back. He is trying and succeeding in spending less on examination while claiming that can be done with improved quality.
Your call. Can it for you?
Here is another message tackling Battistelli’s lies about patent quality:
You know what the Management of the EPO has been publishing.
We improved our quality.
Out union published data saying we feel less confident about our product quality.
If you feel the quality has declined, it is your job to defend your applicant’s rights by complaining to the EPO management that the quality you have received has declined.
There is no need to refer to the actual product, but examples can help.
And do it publicly, preferably not anonymously.
Only then will the public pick up on this problem, and media may gain attention.
And only then will there be a pressure on the AC members to actually change anything.
If you won’t do anything for you, we will not risk our job being proactive for you, as we will get problems when we do anything without being prompted to do so.
“As I see it,” one person added, “applicants who get dodgy patents granted because of the present examination” at the EPO. That’s an important point and here is the entire comment:
As I see it, applicants who get dodgy patents granted because of the present examination process which discourages examiners from raising objections, are unlikely to complain. It is only those who have to defend themselves against dodgy patents in the courts who would complain. It will take some time for these patents to reach the litigation stage, by which M. BB will be long gone. Only a small proportion of patents get litigated anyway.
Don’t expect to get much support from the UK IPO: since the move to Wales, the upper echelons have been increasingly populated by Civil Service generalists rather than ex-examiners who had risen through the ranks and actually understood from personal experience what it is all about. Compared with the 1980′s the status and working conditions of examiners has been much reduced, reflected in the various public consultations which have included proposals to stop examining the description (allegedly following an embryonic EPO proposal) and to move some of the examiners’ work to clerical staff, ostensibly to save money that ought to have resulted in fee reductions but which in practice gets creamed off as special dividends to the BIS.
Some people have chosen humour to describe their frustration and wrote odes like this one:
Eponians, wha hae wi’ Prunier bled,
Eponians, wham SUEPO has aften led,
Welcome tae your gory bed,
Or tae Victorie!
Noo’s the day, and noo’s the hour:
See the front o’ battle lour,
See approach proud Benoît’s power -
Zeljko and Elodie!
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha will fill a coward’s grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Laat him turn and flee!
Wha, for Eponia’s rule o’ law,
Freedom’s sword will strangly draw,
Freeman stand, or Freeman fa’,
Laat him on wi’ me!
By Oppression’s woes and pains!
By your staff reps in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty’s in every blow! -
Laat us doe or dee!’
There was another such ode:
Psst.., it’s oh so quiet! says…
Many illegal loop holes remain to be plugged
EPO system is facing criticism and it is wholly bugged
Justice is sold as revealed with emergence of new facts
it is cleverly wrapped in BB’s words with simple tact
Under official ret act, nothing can be made public or revealed
Under the oath of secrecy it is cleverly concealed
Eponians can’t dream for getting immediate relief
Loosing faith and trust as mark of disbelief
Innocents are sometimes punished for nothing
Trial summary drags on for years to prove something
BB and his goons rule the scene
it has been made laughing stock which is never witnessed or seen
Let sacred principles of justice be upheld
Let innocents be not prosecuted and held
It may or can have legitimate delay
This may send the message across and relay
“Good to hear,” one insider told us this morning about our plan to continue covering these matters (we have a lot of material that has not been published yet). “It’s surprising that a critic of the EPO does so much to support its staff, and to save the Office. You would expect the AC to do that. But for political reasons they are (or at least were) against staff.”
“It’s surprising that a critic of the EPO does so much to support its staff, and to save the Office. You would expect the AC to do that. But for political reasons they are (or at least were) against staff.”
–AnonymousWe were never against patents as a whole and certainly not against the EPO, just against particular elements therein, notably software patents. There’s a saying along the lines of, when people don’t criticise you, then they ceased to care, they no longer try to improve anything and thus it implies/insinuates your failure. I care about the EPO because I care about Europe and a potent patent system — not a production line — is what gives Europe a competitive edge. This weekend we’ll write about SIPO (China) and the USPTO, demonstrating just how attractive a target they’ve made their countries to patent trolls. They’re literally destroying their own country by issuing patents like Wells Fargo opens new bank accounts (“Wells Fargo Opened a Couple Million Fake Accounts” for those who have not heard yet).
At the EPO, based on our years of reporting (soon entering the third year of intensive/extensive reporting), workers worry. They want to do their job properly, but under Battistelli they cannot and many feel as though they’ll lose their job as Battistelli destroys their employer (the Office); The Administrative Council isn’t firing him because he allegedly pays them (or their country) — in its own right a sackable offense in a sane system.
“The situation at the EPO is catastrophic,” wrote one person today, adding some background information and writing to the original author, who has not touched the subject (EPO scandals) since the summer, until a few days ago…
You suggest that the AC members should invite a review and inspection from the national regulatory authorities in the countries in which the main Office sites are located, i.e. the German and Dutch labour ministries.
The idea is good. An honest man would not be afraid of an independent inspection. The problem comes when the man is not really honest and has things to hide.
The situation at the EPO is catastrophic. Far away from human rights, good governance and European standard. The dismissal of staff representatives and the no respect of the rules of law are the tip of the Iceberg.
Battistelli is all but stupid. He knows that an independent investigation at the EPO means the disclosure of a tyranny. The only inspection he will accept are the ones done by friendly auditors paid by himself (with the EPO money) which will repeat his rosy point of view.
The AC members know the situation at the EPO. They are afraid of the scandal that an independent inspection will pop up.
Because immediately questions will rise: Why did they let the situation go so far without control? Why the AC approved regulations that violate human rights and violate the rules of law? Which personal advantages did the AC members received from the EPO president to vote “yes” during years?
It’s rather amazing that in spite of 0% support from staff Battistelli continues to be the boss. The Council should stop sitting on its hands and its Chairman should pay closer attention to the irreparable longterm damage caused by Battistelli instead of skinning chinchillas for profit. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The following two photos have both just been published by the EPO
Summary: The pet chinchilla in the Boards of Appeal Committee (BoAC) makes a public appearance and even facilitates Battistelli’s awful agenda inside of Spain
THE EPO has become so scandalous (an elaborate mess!) that we need new tools/facilities just to keep track of it all and keep it properly cataloged. The American patent system looks like a saint compared to today’s EPO. There aren’t just technical problems but also human rights issues, nepotism, and possibly criminal elements like fraud. The Office and by extension the entire Organisation is rapidly becoming Europe’s greatest source of shame.
Patricia García-Escudero is a symptom of what goes on inside the EPO under Battistelli’s reign. We wrote several articles about this last month [1, 2] (see these for background/details).
Here is the pet chinchilla of Battistelli (Patricia García-Escudero), as boasted in Twitter this week. “On the #EPOPIC stage,” the EPO wrote, “now is Patricia García-Escudero, Director General of @OEPM_es pic.twitter.com/wXJTH6VMOA”
“Is Europe harbouring a banana republic right at the very heart of Bavaria?”“Buenos días from the 26th edition of #EPOPIC in Madrid,” it said separately. “Who’s joining us? pic.twitter.com/iY25LA4n2V”
Well, Patricia García-Escudero is joining you guys pretty soon. More specifically, she’ll serve almost like Battistelli’s ‘mole’ inside the BoAC. How can anyone not see that there is a ‘mole’ in the supposedly ‘independent’ Boards of Appeal? This was foreseen and it is increasingly being confirmed. Watch the photo in this new EPO “news” item (epo.org link). Scroll down and focus on the picture of “Ms Patricia García-Escudero, Director General of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office and President Benoît Battistelli” under “Bilateral co-operation plan signed with Spain” (guess who signed it).
Remember Spain's opposition to the UPC. Is Battistelli using connections through a Vice-President from Spain? The EPO said this yesterday: “The EPO President used the occasion of the Madrid conference to meet with representatives of Spanish government, industry, media and the IP profession. After meeting with José María Jover, Under-Secretary of Industry, Energy and Tourism and President of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, a new bilateral co-operation plan in the field of patents was signed with Ms Patricia García-Escudero, Director General of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. Covering the period 2016-2018, the new bilateral cooperation plan also includes projects in the field of Patent Information and Awareness and Patent related IT services and tools. Spain has been a member of the European Patent Organisation since 1 October 1986. Last year the EPO received more than 1 500 patent applications from Spain, an increase of 3.8% over the previous year.”
The main issue here is that with growing proximity to Battistelli and his ilk it’s almost guaranteed that Patricia García-Escudero has new loyalties and she’ll be a force for Battistelli — not a force for good/justice — inside the BoAC. How can the AC (Administrative Council) be so blind to this? Is Europe harbouring a banana republic right at the very heart of Bavaria? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA