12.31.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Autocracy so powerful that it destroys the whole Office, rather than ensure control and stability
Reference: Omnipotence paradox
Summary: The paradigm of totalitarian control, inability to admit mistakes and tendency to lie all the time is backfiring on the EPO rather than making it stronger
Anonymously posted over a year ago was a long piece in French which compared Battistelli to Napoleon in a not-so-flattering way, putting aside corporate angles. Earlier this year we published a partial translation, but that leaves out some other bits that are worth highlighting.
For example, as one reader put it to us, with additional bits from the original (the only such article posted there from this author):
Ses maréchaux et ministres connurent des sorts divers : de l’exécution capitale jusqu’au service servile de la monarchie restaurée, alors qu’ils devaient leurs carrières à la Révolution et leur fortune à Napoléon. Rares furent ceux qui surent se tenir.
In English: “His marshals and ministers experienced various fates, ranging from capital punishment to the groveling service of the restored monarchy, even though they owed their careers to the French revolution and their fortunes to Napoleon. Few were those who knew how to behave.”
This also aptly describes Mr. Battistelli and his confederates.
Lui, intégra l’École Nationale d’Administration, l’ENA, créée en 1945, qui ne dispense pas de formation à l’autoritarisme. Mais, si elle fournit à la France des administrateurs pétris du sens de l’intérêt général ou de l’État, elle en produit aussi qui imbus d’eux-mêmes ont seuls foi en leur omniscience : il convient donc de dire qu’elle nourrit assez bien l’aspiration à l’omnipotence de certains de ses élèves.
In English: “He was admitted to ÉNA, the National School of Administration, an institution which doesn’t offer training in authoritarianism. But if she provides France administrators steeped in a sense for the common interest or of the State, she also produces self-imbued others who are believe in their personal omniscience; one must admit that she feeds the yearning for omnipotence of a few of her students.”
National School of Administration.
His portrait is thus mostly complete, with the exception of that neo Carlovingian empire bit. I’m coming to that.
Le voici donc décrit, à ceci près qu’il y manque ce néo-Empire Carolingien. J’y arrive.
Let us look at the facts in a broad sense.
Changement dans le régime des pensions à partir de 2009 et passage d’un régime de répartition à un régime par capitalisation : cela a et ne cessera mécaniquement d’avoir pour effet de réduire considérablement la responsabilité financière future de l’OEB au titre des pensions, et cet effet ira toujours en s’accroissant au fur et à mesure que partiront les anciens et arriveront les nouveaux impétrants.
Change in the pension regime beginning 2009, and transition from a pay-as-you-go system to a funded one: this has, and will, automatically reduce the EPO’s future financial liabilities for pensions, and this effect will become increasingly important as new recruits will replace leaving older staff members.
Suppression de facto du droit de grève auquel on substitua une hypothétique autorisation – car fait du prince – de prendre des jours de congés sans solde : ceci était le préalable pour donner naissance aux forceps à un nouvel Office.
De facto abolition of the right to strike, against which was substituted a theoretical permission of taking unpaid holidays, dependent of the monarch’s good will: this was the prerequisite for permitting the forceps delivery of a new Office.
Introduction de la CPC, classification technique commune entre l’office états-unien des brevets, USPTO, et l’OEB, sur la base de la Classification Européenne (EC) que l’Office, qui la développa et la maintint à ses frais, fit don à l’USPTO, à ses dépens, car perdant par là même ce qu’il avait seul construit pour atteindre l’excellence jusqu’à peu reconnue internationalement.
Introduction of the CPC, a common classification scheme for the USPTO and the EPO, which is based…
Fast-forwarding a bit we have:
Alors, que faire ?
English: “Then, what is to be done?”
Over a year has passed and quite a lot has changed. Since then, for example, Battistelli got reprimanded and his team is falling apart, with imminent top-level departures. Even French politicians are lashing out at Battistelli; several of them openly call him an embarrassment to France.
The point about ENA and omnipotence is familiar to us. To repeat a text about ENA, which we translated a year ago, the first sentence in the introduction says “In 2007, for France to survive, we need to free us from the omnipotence of the ENA.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.30.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The role played by Heiko Maas in the UPC, which would harm businesses and people all across Europe, is becoming clearer and hence his motivation/desire to keep Team Battistelli in tact, in spite of endless abuses on German soil
IT wasn’t too long ago that we mentioned Heiko Maas in relation to his complicity, by inaction, in EPO scandals. He has received so many letters (and copies of letters) about the situation, yet he seems to be deaf in both ears and blind in both eyes. It’s like everything about the EPO goes right into his shredder as a matter of policy.
Suffice to say, Germany has plenty to gain from the UPC because it cements Germany’s near-monopoly on EU-wide patents. It does to prosecution what was already done examination- and appeals-wise.
“We are now starting to suspect that Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas ignores EPO abuses (crimes by national laws) out of convenience.”Found today via Christine Robben from Team UPC is this blog post from her employer, which said just before Christmas that a “draft bill for the implementation of the UPCA was published on 9 December 2016 by Justice Minister Heiko Maas. Together with the UK, Germany is one of the two countries that still have to ratify the UPCA before the Unitary Patent system can start functioning.”
We are now starting to suspect that Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas ignores EPO abuses (crimes by national laws) out of convenience. Moreover, he pushes Battistelli’s agenda forward with the UPC. Is he complicit then? Or just a bystander-type enabler? One who refuses to intervene because he has something to gain (or to fear)? How does that relate to Germany's media blackout regarding EPO abuses as of late? It’s almost as though large publishers/editors receive instructions not to ‘meddle’. The EPO wastes a lot of money trying to accomplish just that.
Let it be clear that for Germany to oppose the UPC would make no sense. “Entering into force of provisional [UPC] phase (early opt-outs) is still unclear,” Alexander Esslinger wrote about it, but Germany’s main barriers at the moment are Spain and the UK. WIPR gives a platform to those who promote the UPC in the UK, but the UPC has no future here; even Lucy has just been sacked (or resigned), only a few weeks after she promised the impossible.
The UPC would be utterly disastrous to European businesses. We wrote many articles about this in the past. The UPC would also be very damaging to EPO staff, notably judges. Things are already being pushed to the brink of planned failure, as Battistelli understaffs the boards of appeal (BoA) and limits access to them. Battistelli does to the appeal boards the same thing Tories do to the NHS, as a preparatory step preceding replacement.
Ricardo Ontañón of Clarke Modet & Co has just published this article about the weirdness of EPO oppositions in the Battistelli era. To quote the first paragraph:
Analysis of the lack of clarity in opposition proceedings before the EPO
The European Patent Office (EPO) confirmed in recently issued Decision G3/14 the practice highlighted in earlier decisions (T301/87), whereby establishing that during opposition proceedings of a European patent the Opposition Division of the EPO can only analyze the lack of clarity of the amended claims when the amendments made may introduce an alleged lack of clarity.
Ultimately, considering how eagerly Battistelli seems to be following China's footsteps, all these steps that helped assure patent quality may be phased out/deprecated, leaving both plaintiffs and defendants spending a fortune in ‘unitary’ courts that don’t speak their language and handle patents whose legitimacy ought to have been questioned/scrutinised at the European Patent Office/BoA, not in the courtroom (high costs associated with flights, lawyers, interpreters etc.).
Now that we know Heiko Maas is a wilful enabler of the UPC we are going to approach his utterly reckless attitude towards the EPO’s management as part of the problem. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.29.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 4:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And Battistelli hypocritically compares the staff union to "Mafia"
Summary: Pretending there is a violent, physical threat that is imminent, Paranoid in Chief Benoît Battistelli is alleged to have pursued weapons on EPO premises
THE endless EPO scandals mean that the EPO is full of secrets but not full of surprises as nothing — however appalling — is surprising anymore. People from special services and the military are being recruited by Battistelli, making the EPO look like a warzone rather than something scientific.
“The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day,” said a new comment from yesterday, as it’s rumoured that actual weapons on EPO premises were sought by Battistelli for his expensive goons (hired from the outside, i.e. hired externally at the EPO’s expense). To quote the comment:
wrt bodyguards the rumour has it that first they (Battistelli et al) expected them to carry their weapons IN the EPO before lawyers and infrastructures eventually convince them that this was perhaps a little overstrecht
The EPO is becoming a madhouse by the day. If you loved 2016 watch for 2017 since this is not yet the end of the circus
The internal “Gazette”, according to another new comment, is now being censored by the chronic liars at the top-level management of the EPO:
Your comment is certainly correct, but in the present instance, the contrary is true. An article was prepared, but not accepted by the editorial board of the Gazette.
It is not known whether the board received precise instructions from above or decided on its volition not to publish it. It might well be that the board asked for permission to publish it, but the result is the same in all three occurrences.
There is thus no coincidence.
This relates to a discussion which we previously covered in a couple of posts. These North Korea-like censures (strong criticism) and omissions by Team Battistelli — including Kongstad et al — have expanded their scope of media control to the whole Organisation, not just the Office, and they occasionally step on the toes of bloggers outside the EPO and manipulate the media worldwide (to the tune of over a million Euros of EPO budget… per year).
The Mafia never had this much control over the media. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.27.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Toxic work environment has destroyed the quality of the EPO’s work and nobody can even be held accountable?
By Factio popularis Europaea, CC BY 2.0
Summary: A look at actions taken at a political level against the EPO in spite of the EPO’s truly awkward exemption from lawfulness or even minimal accountability
EARLIER TODAY we leaked a letter which had been sent to Quality Support (DQS) at the European Patent Office (EPO), demonstrating just how terrible things have become. Things were so terrible on so many levels (see the 7 points in the letter) and apparently it’s not so exceptional, either.
“I just read your article on Techrights about the leaked letter to the DQS at EPO,” one reader told us, “complaining about that mess made by examiners on Art 94 etc.”
“It is a general harassment climate made of mean and cheap feuds that examiners do perpetrate among themselves when induced by pressure from above, fed by malevolent lies and spread further by people with low social competence, highly and chronically frustrated, both in their work and in their life (I must assume).”
–AnonymousThis reader told us this “can be a good example of how bad the “malevolent climate” (to use the words chosen by the Technologia survey) can influence the work of examiners, up to the point that the substantial quality of the job is compromised. It is a general harassment climate made of mean and cheap feuds that examiners do perpetrate among themselves when induced by pressure from above, fed by malevolent lies and spread further by people with low social competence, highly and chronically frustrated, both in their work and in their life (I must assume).”
There is an interesting followup on the said case, which we decided to also publish in redacted form (but separately from the letter so as to keep things tidier). We kindly asked, repeatedly in fact, for updates regarding interactions with MEPs and EPO ‘support’ folks. We won’t be revealing any names here, probably because some of those involved (even at the EPO) are not directly culpable and we definitely don’t want to interfere with ongoing political processes (wheels in motion, so to speak). Other people say to us that they’re having the same experience as in the said letter and it helps them to see evidence of that pattern. We need to aspire for power in numbers (number of complainants), as only this way we can demonstrate that there is a widespread, systemic failure, as some attorneys are already noticing and writing about.
The E-mails below show some input from European politicians. “This shows that matters are being progressed on a number of fronts,” as our source put it to us. Our source added that s/he “wonder[s] when they’ll [politicians] realise the EPO appears to be unaccountable to anyone.”
“The E-mails below show some input from European politicians.”Well, this is a known problem. “State within a state” some called it (there were press articles about that on numerous occasions* prior to the EPO's FTI Consulting Web-gagging/media manipulation deal). Our article about the unaccountability of the EPO go back to 2014 and nothing has improved since then. To make matters worse, the German media effectively gagged itself (maybe in connection to FTI Consulting and SLAPP actions from the EPO's lawyers).
We have been gathering this input for quite a while as confidentiality was needed and now is probably a suitable time to publicise it. Publishing at this late stage would probably not compromise the political process as much as before and as long as names are left out, retribution and witch-hunts from Team Battistelli — as notorious as this modus operandi has become — are not possible.
An early message about this actually relied a great deal on reporting by Techrights:
From: ███████
Sent: █████████
To: [Conservative in the European Parliament]
Subject: EPO – Techrights Blog
Dear █████,
Please note that the following site http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/EPO has now published on its blog the generic problems I referred to: ██████.
Regards
█████
The European Ombudsman and the European Commission got brought up/involved as follows:
From: [Conservative in the European Parliament]
To: ███████
Sent: ███████
Subject: RE: EPO – Techrights Blog
Dear ███████,
Thank you for your emails & ███████ to you too- I have only returned to the office today and have been reading through your correspondence.
I did manage to discuss this quickly with ███████ before ███████ and he wanted me to contact both the European Ombudsman and the European Commission to try and establish if there is a role they could play here. I would like to see if they come back to me before sending off the letter.
The next meeting I have with ███████ is on Tuesday, if we have not had a response by then we will send the letter regardless. This should mean that it reaches Munich well before the end of ███████. I will also ask him then about the techrights campaign.
I have also thought about the prospect of contacting the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills- as they are responsible for the UK Intellectual Property Office. Have you had any contact with them? A letter from them to the EPO might be useful too.
Please let me know your thoughts
Best
███████
Now the British Department of Business, Innovation and Skills gets brought up:
From: ███████
To: [Conservative in the European Parliament]
Sent: ███████
Subject: Re: EPO – Techrights Blog
Dear ███████,
Sorry that I have landed you with so much on your ███████.
I think contacting the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills a great idea. I haven’t contacted them at all. I was keen to get a further push from the UK so earlier today I had written to ███████ my MP asking if she could put her ore in too. I have told her that ███████ is already on the case. Clearly the more angles we explore the better provided we don’t trip over each other. With this in mind I will aim to share the actions with you and her so we are all on the same page at the same time. If you would like it handled differently please do let me know.
I also know a former judge who usually has an interest in people’s rights. I have asked her if she might be interested in helping but since I only asked today I at present don’t know if she will be willing to help. I will keep you posted.
Many thanks
███████
One week later the UK Intellectual Property Office got mentioned along with Lucy (who is no longer in that job):
From: [Conservative in the European Parliament]
To: ███████
Sent: ███████
Subject: RE: EPO – Techrights Blog
Dear ███████,
Thank you for your patience whilst I get back to you
I’ve now heard back from the European Ombudsmen, they have confirmed that the EPO is outside of their mandate (Unfortunately the European Patents Office is not one of the bodies, offices or agencies of the EU. It was established under the European Patent Convention 1973 and finally set up in 1977. It contains the all the Member States of the EU and other countries which are not part of the EU. Further, the EU is also not a member of the Convention. As such it is a separate intergovernmental organisation and so not part of the Ombudsman’s mandate.) They have recommended the UK Intellectual Property Office as a further point of contact, in line with what I suggested last week.
As we have yet to receive a response to our Parliamentary Question, I have taken a look at some of the others submitted to the European Commission on this topic. Like the Ombudsmen, the Commission is also insistent that the EPO is outside of their mandate, therefore I do not think that it will be very useful for us to wait for their response.
So moving forward,
I have now spoken to ███████ and we have sent off a letter to Baroness Neville Roche, the head of the UK Intellectual Property Office. I have passed her along a copy of the original letter you sent to ███████, outlining your case, as well as a cover letter with an update on your case. ███████ has asked her to review your case and offer assistance.
Furthermore, we have now send [sic] off the response to the EPO in line with the drafting you sent through.
I will let you know when we have a response. Please keep us informed of any updates your end.
Best wishes,
███████
“I believe the action of the EPO has effectively stripped me of all economic value of my invention already,” our source told us. “I think the only thing that will get them to sit up and pay attention/change is if they are sued. I am not sure if this is possible and what the risks and costs to myself might be. have you ever heard of them being sued?”
Well, my lawyers once explored that option and various people sent input about that. It seems as though the EPO is almost immune to lawsuits too — not just to the law itself — and as Minnoye serves to remind us, the EPO is happy to just ignore even a ruling from the highest Dutch court, so why bother? The European Patent Convention inadvertently created quite a monstrous institution. Monsters don’t die in peace; they fight whoever is eager to challenge them. █
______
* In the EPO Wiki at Techrights, look under entries that fall (by colour coding) under “state within a state”. This links to (and translates into English) quite a few articles from German and Dutch media, published at a time when they still bothered covering the issue.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
One has to wonder how many more letters like this are being suppressed (never seen by the outside world) and how widespread these problems really are
Summary: Example of abysmal service at the EPO, where high staff turnover and unreasonable pressure from above may be leading to communication issues that harm stakeholders the most
THE FOLLOWING IS AN anonymised letter to senior EPO staff, bemoaning what was a horrible (and possibly not exceptional) service from the EPO, which caused enormous financial loss and the loss of many years (stuck in a limbo).
████████████████ ████████████████
Director, Directorate 2.5.2
Quality Support (DQS)
Principal Directorate Quality Management I DG2
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany
Application No: █ █ █ █ █
Dear Mr. ████████████████████,
Re Letter of ██ & ██ ███
Under rule 71 (2): -
‘Any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent.’
At the first oral hearing the EPO stated that Claim 1 as set out in document ██ met the EPC criteria for grant. It was recognised that dependent claims along with possible additional IP that could be added. The directions of the chairman were that these small outstanding matters were to be addressed by email. This resulted in submission of ██████. This provided 4 areas for discussion and detailed mark-up of the changes. There was no separate response to this communication. The response that was given was added by way of an addendum to the intention to grant Rule 71 (3) of ████.
In contravention of Rule 71 (2) the response did not include a reasoned response on all grounds. There was no way of telling which mark-up was acceptable and which wasn’t. Had a full response been provided I would have known those part that may have been acceptable or not could have been addressed or incorporated into any further revision. In fact this failure to provide a full response is confirmed by the fact that no sooner than the initial objections were met than further grounds of objection by the EPO were added (see EPO’s later correspondence). The last such revision of objection being set out in the examining divisions letter of ███. Not only have I been subject to a grossly incomplete first response but further objections have been drip fed over months greatly adding to delay. The last of these objections I haven’t even been given an opportunity to contest because the examining division has refused the application in its entirety; not withstanding that the EPO has stated that a patent could be granted. It would appear that if you challenge the EPO you simply lose the IP that is rightly yours. Why was Rule 71 (2) not followed and why am I not given the opportunity to respond and possibly correct objections before my application is refused?
In your letter you state: “A grant can only be given on the basis of text approved by the applicant.” This would suggest that Rule 71 (3) (the intention to grant) is only instigated when agreement has been reached. I am left confused by the approach of the EPO on this front. The first letter of intent to grant was made under Rule 71 (3) on ███. This was later withdrawn. The exact same approach was then adopted on ████. In your letter of ███ you state that the text was not approved by me. The text in both instances was the same. As the text was not approved I do not understand why the EPO moved to issuing a letter of intention to grant. What had changed between the withdrawal of the intention to grant of ██ and later resubmission of the same words in ██? As detailed in the previous paragraph it is clear from the changing grounds of the EPO that discussions with the EPO were ongoing as at ███. Why are applications refused when discussions are ongoing? Does the applicant have no right of reply? Why was the intention to grant issued when clearly agreement had not been reached? The evidence suggests that this approach has simply been used as a procedural move to refuse the application and curtail criticism.
From paragraph 7 of your letter of ███ it would appear that under Rule 71 (3) applicants are allowed to contest wording but if they do so they run the risk of a complete refusal of your application! The right to contest looks more like Russian Roulette. It would appear that the applicant is being restricted from contesting his case. At the point applicants are offered the prospect of contesting wording, the consequences of doing so should be set out in BOLD print. This they are not. In fact the insight in your letter is the first I have heard of this position and it came precisely at the same moment that this action was taken. You have previously provided a full set of references to substantiate the legal basis for the actions of the EPO but alas there are none here. Please could you supply me with the legal basis for this and references as you have done previously. I think it is critical that all applicants should understand when they are genuinely allowed to contest points and clearly when they are not.
In your letter of ████ paragraph ███ you have still failed to address the contradiction that the EPO is claiming inventive step and no inventive step on identical wording. You claim that my suggestion that the division contradicts itself may simply be due to a misinterpretation of the communication of the division (para 11). Please could you tell me what this misinterpretation is because I haven’t clue and you haven’t stated what it is? In para ██ you state that ███ has been deemed inventive with regard to the document ██. This issue concerning contradiction can readily be resolved if you or your examining division simply tell me what this inventive step is. Currently the examiner is complaining about the metal pipes of the heat exchanged as not being inventive, yet the wording concerning the metal pipes is the same in all documents ██, ██ and ██. You have asserted that ██ shows inventive step over ███, please can you tell me what it is? I bet this cannot answered honestly without agreeing with my assertion about contradiction is correct. Why is the inventive step not documented in the minutes of the oral hearings?
In para ██ of your letter ███ you claim that; “the EPO has taken all possible steps to support your constituent (me)”. I ask you then: -
1. Why did the EPO not suggest I seek, or they themselves seek, an adjournment to the oral proceedings when they knew I could not attend due to being on my honeymoon?
2. Why did the EPO not tell me that I may lose my patent all together if I contested the EPO’s wording or lack of dependent claims?
3. Why has the EPO steadfastly refused to address the issue that the EPO contradicts itself?
4. Is the median turn around for applications greater than 6.5 years?
5. Is it normal to simply refuse an application on which the EPO asserts a patent can be granted without first consulting the applicant?
6. Why has the examining division not followed the order of priority for reviewing claims as set out in correspondence? This would have prevented the refusal letter from being submitted.
7. How are my interests served by being forced into an appeals process that will costs a minimum of 1,860 euros for the appeal, probable a further circa 3,500 euros on renewal fees and a further wait of 3 years when it is accepted by invention is patentable!?
In paras ███, ███ and ███ you suggest that I should employ the services of a competent professional. Setting aside the inference that I am not competent and setting aside all possible steps of support that the EPO has given me I have to ask what happens when the lack of competence lies with the EPO?
In the letter of refusal of ███ the examiners claim there is no ███ document on file. Is there little wonder then that I, and probably many others too, lose all faith in the EPO as an organisation when one realises that not only does the document exist on file but it has historically been replied to. This statement that the document does not exist on file has been signed by three of your examiners! What legal options for redress are there available to applicants who find their applications so evidently mistreated? What actions will you be taking to ensure this does not happen again?
In accordance with the spirit of Rule 71 (2) please could I have a full response to all points raised in this letter. May I suggest a response by email will significantly save time.
Regards
████████████ ██████████████████
Have you encountered similarly bad service? If so, please get in touch with us. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The precious snowflakes of EPO management cannot handle criticism from the public
Summary: Willy Minnoye, Ciarán McGinley, Lionel Baranès, Theano Evangelou and others near the top of the EPO pyramid recalled in light of old news about them
THE EPO is about to have an exceptionally tough year that’s agonising to Battistelli’s circle (or “Team Battistelli”), which already falls apart (Minnoye will be leaving before his term ends and so will Ciarán McGinley).
“I very much liked what you published in this article, which I second,” one reader told us, regarding the article that led to the following E-mail being sent to me in March:
Dear Sir,
I would like to refer to the Article/post on the EPO published on the Techrights webpage on the 15.3.2016 which quotes an anonymous reader who inter Alia makes reference to my name Theano Evangelou.
I would like to note that I do not wish to be mentioned neither by name nor would I like to be identifiable. I would thus kindly ask you to withdraw my name or any such information from the blog and not to spread it further. I must further note that I feel personally impacted by such mention.
Yours faithfully,
Theano Evangelou
Some people at the EPO’s management foolishly think we’ll self-censor just because they don’t want to be held accountable for their behaviour. Some even resort to legal threats. These precious snowflakes think that as heads of an international public institution they deserve to live in a cocoon with privacy levels greater than those of the CIA? They want not only immunity from the law but also invisibility (from the public which they purport to be ‘serving’)?
“They want not only immunity from the law but also invisibility (from the public which they purport to be ‘serving’)?”I shared the above letter with someone, who later said to me: “if you want to have a bit of fun with it…. You may ask back if being mentioned as “head of legal department, lawyer” of such an ethically challenging (and challenged) organization is of any bother: If you search in Google for “theano evangelou legal patent”, the first result is her LinkedIn profile in all its pretentious pride. I mean, not just a lawyer, but the Head of the Legal Department! Of EPO! And she feels “impacted” by seeing her name? … give me a break. What a laugh…”
“I think Ciarán McGinley also belongs in the list of rogues,” another person added. “He’s a former SUEPO official turned manager. (This phenomenon isn’t unique to the EPO.)”
Well, McGinley is leaving soon. Maybe seeing SUEPO under attack, combined with a morsel of consciousness, was enough to compel him to withdraw from his “Career Climber” tendencies.
“Remember the PR head that left the EPO almost as soon as he had joined?”“My memories of Lionel Baranès are about as faint as his tenure was brief (2002-2004, IIRC),” told us another person. Well, maybe he didn’t ‘fit in’, so to speak. Remember the PR head that left the EPO almost as soon as he had joined? Not just Vincent Bénard…
Baranès’ open letter of resignation is quite revealing, but few people even care to remember it. If anyone has a copy of that letter, please get in touch with us. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Board of the Organisation admitted there was "a crisis" in 2016. Now it’s time to act.
Summary: Battistelli’s circle (or “Team Battistelli”) is starting to disintegrate, perhaps in anticipation of a tough year full of new leaks (“WillyLeaks” as some put it)
EARLIER this year we saw some big changes at the EPO, where the management is now undoubtedly on the defensive (under growing scrutiny from many directions). We have already found out Battistelli’s salary, who left (statistics indicating brain drain), and who signed off many of the attacks on staff representatives. Battistelli’s circle does not like transparency because it leads to accountability, which is like sunshine to a vampire. What lowers the circle’s morale these days is truth itself, or facts, which is why Team Battistelli blatantly lies so routinely and covers up — even using threats — anything not convenient to its agenda.
“What lowers the circle’s morale these days is truth itself, or facts, which is why Team Battistelli blatantly lies so routinely and covers up — even using threats — anything not convenient to its agenda.”Earlier on (yesterday) we found this new comment stating: “When people retire, it is up to them whether they want an article in the censored Gazette. This chairman would not be the first one to leave without it.”
Now, for those wishing to see the context, it said: “One of the members of the EBA [Enlarged Board of Appeal] who participated in the decision Art 23 has retired. Normally when a chairman of a BA retires, there is an article in the internal journal of the EPO (the Gazette). For this chairman, there is nothing. Is this a mere coincidence? I doubt it.”
This is indicative of the growing culture of secrecy at the EPO, only combated because of sites like ours or groups like SUEPO (although SUEPO is increasingly afraid and thus silent).
“Normally when a chairman of a BA retires, there is an article in the internal journal of the EPO (the Gazette). For this chairman, there is nothing. Is this a mere coincidence? I doubt it.”
–Earlier this year we wrote about yet another ILO case citing the Bernard Paye case (at the time, ILO released dozens of EPO decisions, more than 80% of which ruled against the EPO's management). ILO is, thankfully, starting to handle more of the appeals from the year Battistelli went mad. Recently, two such appeals and the decisions on them served to reveal that Battistelli had made a mockery of justice itself. Taking into account actions by Team Battistelli Against the European Patent Convention (EPC) as well, what we have here and what it boils down to is a regime above the law and doing what’s outlawed. It’s positioned somewhere in Bavaria where no politician has effectively tackled some truly serious abuses (which in the absence of immunity for Battistelli would possibly have him and his goons criminally charged).
We expect a growing number of groups and politicians to scrutinise Team Battistelli in 2017. We have some leaks coming and the more the public knows, the worse it will get for Battistelli. Here is a recent letter (in French) from CERN’s Staff Association:
A year or so ago EPSU and FNV, which represent unions, had already become aware of the situation and wrote letters about it. To quote some text from that time:
The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) which represents more than 265 unions, and the Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV), the largest union in the Netherlands, have sent a letter to Mr Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The letter recalls that the judgment of Dutch Court of Appeal gave explicit instructions to the EPO which the EPO decided to ignore by raising an illicit immunity of execution objection: “breaches of fundamental workers’ rights on the Dutch territory are a first serious embarrassment for the Dutch government and that challenging the respect of these rights side by side with an obviously ill-run international organisation before the highest Court of the Netherlands is an even worse embarrassment.”
A copy of the letter was sent to the Dutch Foreign Office and Ministry of Economy, the Ambassadors of the 27 EU Member States in The Hague, Ver.Di (Berlin) and USF (Brussels).
Institutions which are positioned above national laws and claim to enforce their own rules (but don’t, management is exempted also) must be brought under control and those responsible for abuses have their protection stripped off, potentially to face jail time like Sepp Blatter did. Some people actually think that Battistelli too belongs in prison. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.26.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2017: The Year of EPO Getting Leaky(ier)
This utterly absurd sentence was actually used by EPO recruitment in LinkedIn
Summary: When the brain drain deepens and the HR department is unable to replace talented people with other talented people an institution is basically doomed and the EPO under Bergot as HR head is going nowhere fast
TECHRIGHTS INTENDS to step up its work unearthing and exposing EPO scandals, even if that means leaving aside some software activism, antagonism of software patents at the USPTO (a problem which was increasingly being resolved in 2015-2016), and various other subjects that Techrights has been focused on for more than a decade.
The EPO is a rogue institution. People both inside and outside the EPO know that the direction the management has taken spells doom both for insiders and outsiders (like EP holders). As one person has just put it (anonymously) “PDHR has the highest staff turnover ever… only her body guards seem to survive! …this comes of course with a price tag of approx. 1 Million EUR a year on expenses, rumour also says that these individuals are not even registered in a company. Surprisingly the IU also appears to be too busy with harassing the SR’s instead of catching the big fishy HR stuff..”
IU is the investigative unit, which we exposed here before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. SRs are staff representatives — those who bear most of the brunt due to the IU’s aggression (an effort to disenfranchise EPO staff and control it by terror). PDHR is one who appears to have gotten her job thanks to family connections [1, 2, 3, 4] and her department is crumbling. This isn’t new to us. Last week we reported that she was probably having conflicts/infighting also (allegedly involving the IU). Her newly-found bodyguards addiction was covered her several times before and we constantly hear truly embarrassing stories about her — though we cannot tell such stories for fear that it would compromise sources. Bergot, being a member of Team Battistelli (confidants and family members), has become a liar too.
Well, in 2017 we intend to take it up a notch and climb deeper down the EPO’s throat. If Team Battistelli is wise enough, it will follow Willy Minnoye's footsteps and take as early [sic] (actually, much belated at age 70 or so) retirement. Vice-President Minnoye was quite vocal about his fear of Techrights and EPO leaks. Well, it’s about to get worse for them and no doubt they will attempt to silence us. That’s how Battistelli and his goons deal with media. That’s revolting. It’s absolutely disgusting and unheard of (for sure unprecedented at the EPO). █
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