06.02.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team Battistelli plays morale games and manipulates (or pays) the media, still…
Reference: Demoralization (warfare)
Summary: Having just paid large media organisations, Battistelli and his private contractors produce more misinformation with which to indoctrinate the public and manufacture consent for the Battistelli regime
THERE’S material about the EPO in circulation as many people are truly concerned about the Office and want the Organisation to save/redeem it. We published 6 articles about the EPO yesterday and there’s a lot more on the way. In the coming days we shall focus on some of the misinformation from Battistelli and his goons. It’s not about the distractions (like Battistelli’s alleged bicycle and the upcoming extravaganza in Lisbon) but about the so-called ‘studies’ which Battistelli intends to use for lobbying the media, politicians, etc. These Battistelli-funded (and commissioned) ‘studies’, as per the neoliberal model where even science is just a business, aren’t more legitimate than Monsanto-funded ‘studies’ and these need to be scrutinised perpetually. Battistelli is fighting an information war. He also compares his critics to Nazis and criminals when speaking to politicians.
“Battistelli is fighting an information war.”Alluding to the latest Technologia survey, this one person wrote: “here the appalling results of the Technologia staff survey on psycho social risks [...] they illustrate Battistelli’s mandate (2010 to 2016) and speak for themselves” (showing the role that Battistelli himself has played, by comparing different time points).
Battistelli is trying to commission a bogus survey from a rather dodgy company (Wellkom). It’s supposed to distract from his abuses and shift blame.
“Battistelli is trying to commission a bogus survey from a rather dodgy company (Wellkom).”“Regarding Wellkom,” one reader wrote to us, “for whatever it’s worth I looked up “Andrea Jutta Phillips” — which is a rather uncommon combination of German given names and an English surname — and came up with the following. It is a teaser from a Spanish legal information site, providing an excerpt of the Official Journal of the Spanish Region of Murcia. The name appears in the faded part of the page. The full page is available with a trial registration. The title of the notice is: “Citación a contribuyentes en ignorado domicilio, o por no saber, o haberse negado a firmar cédula de notificación, para ser notificados por comparecencia.” No date is given. These are public summons for truant taxpayers, a measure of last resort when there is no known address for service, or the party refuses to accept notification. It seems like a local council was intending to auction off some property for settling unpaid taxes. A consequence of the great Spanish real estate bubble? Neither one of the Phillips spouses seems to have a large footprint on the Internet, to say the least.”
Stay tuned for part 2 as we are going to show the lack of transparency in this whole process. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.01.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The ENA or Battistelli school of thought poses an unprecedented danger not just to the Office but the entire Organisation and unless people fight back, the whole of Europe will suffer
Edward Bray from Marks & Clerk (software patents pushers) seems to conveniently ignore the fact that software patents are not allowed in Europe. Why are patent lawyers from Marks & Clerk surprised at all that such claims are not patent-eligible? As it turns out, based on Bray’s new writeup, the determination came from the Technical Board of Appeal, whose function is essential for keeping software patents out of the EPO, in the face of strong/intense pressure from boorish neoliberals like Battistelli. To quote Bray: “In T 1370/11, the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO considered a patent application directed to a method for determining values of objects in a program by performing a calculation based on properties of those objects and using the result of the calculation to determine if a cache required updating. [...] The Board held in paragraph 10 of the decision that “the argument that a computer program or computer-implemented method is inventive because it is faster than an earlier one is on its own insufficient to establish an inventive step. More specifically, the improved speed of a computer program is by itself not a technical contribution to the art.” [...] “This case provides useful guidance for those hoping to patent quicker, more efficient computer programs. It is clear that a reduction in computing time is, by itself, not a technical contribution and cannot be relied on to support inventiveness. Inventors and claim drafters should instead consider what “further” technical effect their invention provides in order to satisfy the EPO examiners that a technical, inventive contribution is provided over the state of the art.”
We sure hope that the Boards of Appeal will all survive. They’re quality controllers. Battistelli is so clueless (and completely non-technical) that he's not aware of sharp quality decline and if he gets his way (demolishing the Boards of Appeal), things will get a lot worse pretty fast. There will be even less oversight and fewer controls, not just over Battistelli himself but also the technical process where increased pressure and nepotism already limit the exhaustiveness of prior art search and provide an incentive to grant, not to reject. Looking at some of the latest comments from The Register, one person makes the FIFA comparison (again): “So, get your mates to set you up in Office, then turn it into a fiefdom. Sounds like standard practice to me (FIFA, EUFA, International Olympic Committee etc.)”
Another person compares Battistelli to Mugabe by saying: “Narcissus? 
“We sure hope that the Boards of Appeal will all survive.”“Pretty scary stuff this. The EPO agents should have complete autonomy, otherwise the President basically becomes a version of Robert Mugabe (without all the evil things Mugabe has done).
“If I had a vote, I’d vote El Presidente out immediately and call for form. Oh, but wait: the EU isn’t a democracy ;-)”
The EPO is not an EU institution though. “I guess you could always write to your local MEP,” one person jokingly added. “You know, the one you voted for in the last European elections, remember? ;)”
Well, they are not effective enough as the EPO is unhinged from the EU. Eponia is quite a crazy place. The best comment was this sarcastic one: “I think Benoit Battistelli is doing an excellent job… of highlighting all the flaws in the current appointment and employment process.
“The only thing left is to test the forced exit procedure, and from what I can read, he’s hard at work to ensure he gets to test that too. I just hope he able to sample the exit-in-disgrace process in full instead of forcing a test of business continuity process that should kick in if he’s run over by a bus due to failing bike brakes.”
“Sarcasm aside, I would like to know of the moron who ever approved an operating model like that. It must have been someone who saw this as a nice cushy retirement job. The only flaw in the plan must have been Battistelli not leaving.”
“Eponia is quite a crazy place.”The problem is, some of these flaws he himself has created by removing oversight and attacking critics, hiring old buddies, and even their family members. We have been writing about this for years. We showed the ‘paper trail’, so to speak.
“The Register article about an AMBA letter to the AC regarding the proposed reforms,” noted one person at IP Kat, giving people a link to it. “If that is true, then our President follows his targets to the minimum letter. He has been told to consult. check. Nobody told him to listen to the arguments and come to an agreement regarding a proposal during these consultations.
“I wonder what DG3 would say if I came to Oral Proceedings in Examination or Opposition and have the decision already on the table. Efficient procedure, yes. But….
“I would be doing what our President is doing. yet I could be charged with professional incompetence and be fired over this.”
Another person then said: “An Appeal Board that is funded from patent renewal fees is clearly not financially independent, hence not independent. The law of unintended consequences should make everyone careful over what they wish for.”
Yes, this is in fact a design flaw, perhaps dating back to the EPC. One person wrote:
As good as half a lifetime ago
Conscientious examiners at the EPO
Were proud to do a job well done
To serve the European public as one
but now are hindered to do so.
Well, there’s a lot of money at stake and mistakes cost a lot to society. To quote this new example from IP Kat, watch the royalty rates. To quote: “This technology was the subject of European Patent No EP 0173 177 53, issued on 22 April 1992 (‘patent EP 177’), as well as two patents issued in the United States on 15 December 1998 and 17 April 2001 (‘patent US 522’ and ‘patent US 140’, respectively). On 12 January 1999, the European Patent Office revoked EP 177.”
So patents do get revoked (admission of errors), but boards won’t have the opportunity to revoke anything under Battistelli. It’s not only expensive but it’s also unclear if any staff will be left inside the boards.
Another IP Kat post (a little older) contains a very long discussion about sanctions imposed on those choosing to leave their EPO job. One person has just said that:
The problem with the proposal, as usual, is that it lacks checks and balances. If someone leaves the Office or is fired and seeks another occupation, even without pay (say being the head of the local Union…), the President can say no. He just has to say it is against the interest of the Office. The person can only complain to the ILO-AT tribunal In Geneva who, in practice, only checks whether formal conditions are met. ILO-AT will then obviously agree with the decision, as all recent jurisprudence shows.
Furthermore, in the new system, the personal member getting a new job must first inform the President and wait two months before accepting a new job. In the present system, there is no such obligation.
There is a new paper about the Paris criteria explaining that the Office will hire massively in the next 3 years, creating redundant examiner posts once the backlog is processed. I understand that hundreds of “redundant” examiners will be fired then. All this is very worrying.
Truthfully, it is worth reading comments prior to this as well. We chose not to focus on this due to lack of time, but it helps highlight just how deep a trap people fall into when they choose to sign an employment contract with the EPO.
Where can such people find employment if just about everywhere that looks for patent expertise is out-of-boundaries for existing (or departing) EPO staff? Battistelli entraps them.
“Battistelli is ruining the EPO pretty fast and if his so-called ‘reforms’ become a reality, the whole Organisation (not just the Office) may become irreparable, making Europe a lot less competitive.”Kingsley Egbuonu of MIP is currently ‘advertising’ the UPC (job ads) even though it’s still just a hypothetical thing. To quote the summary: “Part-time and full-time UPC judges wanted; new features of the UPC case management system and EPO’s software for Unitary Patent released; more member states preparing for ratification; Preparatory Committee discuss remaining aspects of the UPC; our latest UPC scenario on challenging a non-opted out European patent relating to a pharmaceutical product during the transitional period” (putting aside the fact that the UPC can still be called off).
Not too long ago there was a long discussion about why (or why not) board members (from the Boards of Appeal) can/cannot take such jobs. When it comes to the UPC, many comments about it in IP Kat reveal confusion and uncertainty even from insiders (the whole thing is a mess, as even patent attorneys habitually tell me) and to make matters even worse, the UPC helps bring software patents to Europe. Would there be any Boards of Appeal to antagonise this? Probably not. This is why the Boards of Appeal need to be guarded and the UPC antagonised. Battistelli is ruining the EPO pretty fast and if his so-called ‘reforms’ become a reality, the whole Organisation (not just the Office) may become irreparable, making Europe a lot less competitive. It’s all about serving billionaires, in lieu with TTIP, TPP, and what used to be called ACTA. Watch what Microsoft has just done to Xiaomi and recall what Microsoft did to TomTom (medium-sized Dutch company) using software patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Bavarian media informed politicians, who now feed information back into the German media
Summary: Staff of the European Patent Office manages to get its collective voice heard in spite of truly wasteful white-washing ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ that Battistelli and his circle commission to mischaracterise and badly portray the situation
BACK in March we published slides from a staff survey conducted by Technologia with help from SUEPO members. This survey indicated that, based on thousands of respondents, Battistelli is trusted by nobody at all. It was a damning if not unbelievable outcome, as this suggests that not even ‘moles’ (infiltrators) have snuck into the union. Earlier today SUEPO released more of the same, under the banner “Results of the 2016 European Patent Office Staff Survey”.
Here is the full thing with links to all the corresponding PDFs.
The results of the 2016 EPO Staff Survey by Technologia are now available. With a participation rate of 39% this third edition allows to assess reliably the current situation and the development of psychosocial risk among EPO staff under Mr Battistelli’s presidentship. The situation and the trend are worrying.
Most important findings are available in the “Executive Summary” (also available in German, French and Dutch). Other relevant information has been gathered in a summary presentation (also available in German and French).
The raw results to all questions (compared with the results of the 2010 and 2013 editions) are also available in three languages: English, German and French.
In the mean time, despite the fact that SUEPO says nothing about it and there is no coverage in English, German media writes about yesterday afternoon’s debate about the EPO’s debacles at the Bavarian Parliament (we could use translations of these articles about it [1, 2]). With the data above they should be able to assess the situation; Battistelli now engages in information war with help from dodgy firms and PR giants from the United States. It’s an extraordinary waste of money. SUEPO took note of another bit of coverage from German media, but again, without English translation there’s not much we can publish herein. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Team Battistelli-leaning union, FFPE-EPO, responds to criticism in the worst possible way
“STAY CLASSY,” goes the famous saying. Well, having received this letter from FICSA several weeks ago, Sam van der Bijl sends out an internal response to the few people who can call themselves FFPE-EPO members.
“From the (in)famous EPO pro-management union FFPE,” told us our source, came the following new text (earlier today).
“Another piece of very noble prose,” the source added. Before even reading any of the accompanying remarks I was rather appalled to see nationality brought into it. Our source later added “see at the end that illustrates the essence of what FFPE truly is” (indeed so)…
Reply to those who deny our right to sign an MoU
Submitted by S van der Bijl on Wed, 01/06/2016 – 12:29
In the past month FFPE EPO received to scandalous letters. On of the came from USF and other from FICSA. The content of these two letters to which we will not officially reply is that FFPE EPO is a minority union and should shut up and listen to decisions taken by a bigger union. It is true that an international organisation is not a democracy but however that des not mean that certain democratic principles do not apply. One of the pillars of any democracy is the rights of minorities to express their opinions and beliefs and to defend their interests. This is exactly what FFPE EPO is doing. We are a minority union which has different values, different tactics, different beliefs and even a different composition of members. Our members have interests and ideas and it is the role of the FFPE EPO committee to defend as well as we can these interests and ideas. I don’t see at all why non members should have any say at all in the decisions that FFPE EPO takes. The only people who have the legal right to tell the committee what to do and not to do are the members in a general assembly. Our members vote for our committee and it’s policy. For the members of other unions, the message is therefore mind your own business! As for mr. Diab Tabari from FICSA who signed this shameful letter, I think he did not read very carefully what he signed. How would he, as a worker for UNWRA in Libanon, like it if the majority leader of for example Libanon wrote a letter to the refugees to tell them to shut up because they are a minority?
“Libanon” should be Lebanon, but never mind that, it’s not Sam’s first language.
“Remember that union whose chairman was elected by NINE (9) members,” our source reminds us. We covered this whole affair before, e.g. in:
- In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
- Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
- “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
- Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
- The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
- Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
- Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
- FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
- Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
- Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
- On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
- Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
- In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election
With ‘unions’ like these, who needs union busters? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Google, Microsoft, Patents at 6:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft reminds us that it is still engaging in patent extortion by signing yet another patent settlement deal which requires surrendering to Microsoft
JUST over a month ago Microsoft officials made it clear that the patent war against Android was still on. Now it’s confirmed by actions.
Today’s post is reactionary, as usual, and it will be about Microsoft extortion. We shall provide some background information to help explain why European regulators should put Microsoft on trial instead of taking Microsoft’s lobbying in Europe seriously, imposing fines on Google and acting as Google watchdogs.
Microsoft’s patent extortion against companies in China isn’t entirely new. Remember what it did to ZTE 3 years ago. Chinese authorities got visibly irritated by Microsoft’s patent shakedown and released a previously-secret list of patents Microsoft uses to extort companies in China, compelling them to obey Microsoft’s demands so as to avert costly litigation. Xiaomi is the latest victim, but to Microsoft the high-prized deal would be with Huawei, which is a growing force and dominant OEM in the Android domain. Huawei, based on reports we mentioned in past years, doesn’t surrender.
“Xiaomi is the latest victim, but to Microsoft the high-prized deal would be with Huawei, which is a growing force and dominant OEM in the Android domain.”More patent extortion from Microsoft serves to remind us that there is no strategic change at Microsoft. Microsoft cannot coexist with Linux and leave it alone/live in peace; it cannot help itself, it’s a scorpion (riding on a tortoise/turtle as per the famous parable) and it just keeps pinching that which it’s exploiting for a free ride (Android in this case) while relying on regulators — through lobbying — to prevent defensive reaction from Google. Horacio Gutierrez may be gone, but nothing substantial happened or changed. Don’t believe for a second that just because Microsoft’s patent Mafia don has left it somehow means the extortion strategy stopped. Microsoft never rescinded or withdrew this, except on April 1st (as a prank).
For those who are not sure what Microsoft is doing here, how it misleads the media, and what it means in practical terms, see this article about Acer. The above is repetition of the same strategy. They are putting lipstick on a pig again.
“This has nothing to do with access to services, it’s just how they dress up patent extortion and the coercion which comes with it.”In short, Microsoft tells Xiaomi, “do what we say or we’ll sue you with patents.” In other words, Microsoft threatens litigation and gives a “get out” clause (make Android become just a Microsoft platform). Having just killed Windows on mobile, this is all Microsoft has left. It uses blackmail tactics to impose its malware/spyware on potentially billions of phones. The ‘official’ announcement says this:
Microsoft Corp. and Xiaomi Inc. have expanded their global partnership to provide innovative user experiences on mobile devices. As part of the agreement, Xiaomi will ship Microsoft Office and Skype on Xiaomi Android smartphones and tablets. As a result, tens of millions of consumers and business customers in China, India and around the world will have new ways to work, collaborate and communicate. The companies’ new collaboration also includes a cross-license and patent transfer agreement.
Don’t be misled by “cross-license and patent transfer agreement.” It’s a settlement basically. The FFII’s President responded to this as follows: “Microsoft is the biggest patent troll.”
This has nothing to do with access to services, it’s just how they dress up patent extortion and the coercion which comes with it. And they tell us Microsoft “loves Linux”… does anybody still believe that? Not even Microsoft’s marketing staff should be gullible enough to believe it. █
Update: Based on updates given to relatively high-profile reporters (and those who updated their puff pieces accordingly), Microsoft managed to get ‘protection’ money too, albeit not in the traditional form. Xiaomi has just been pressured to have paid (unless it just wanted to pay) Microsoft for useless patents; this is either a novel way to disguise another case of blackmail against Linux or part of Xiaomi’s patent hoarding efforts. Either way, it’s starting to become apparent that Xiaomi paid Microsoft, one way or another (the amount is not known). “The Wall Street Journal reports that Xiaomi will purchase 1,500 patents from Microsoft as part of the deal,” says one writer, citing an article that says “Xiaomi Corp. has agreed to purchase around 1,500 patents” (the term “agreed to purchase” suggests that it came from Microsoft, not from Xiaomi).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest developments in Zagreb, where Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’ faces many criminal charges for the chaos he had caused (resulting//culminating even in suicide)
New documents from Croatia have begun reaching us and sources in Zagreb suggest some big things are about to happen (we mentioned or alluded to these before).
A copy of a “Special Report” dated the 28th April 2016 (i.e. one month ago) from the Zagreb Police Authority is shown above (plus translation at the bottom). Quoting our source: “This document indicates that the police have already compiled around five investigation reports in response to a number of complaints against Željko Topić,” who now viciously attacks EPO staff. He’s like Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’ and rumours suggest that Battistelli will soon ask for extension of his term. Reports (police investigations) already compiled include (but may not be limited to):
- 24th of June 2013
- 13th of November 2013
- 18th of November 2013
- 22nd of November 2013
- 24th of June 2014
“It seems that there was no follow-up on these police reports by the State Attorney’s Office,” our source told us. “It is suspected that this was due to some kind of political interference during the Presidency of Ivo Josipovic who was voted out of office in January 2015.
“The justice system in Croatia now seems to be slowly gathering momentum so there could be some interesting developments on this front over the coming weeks.”
Some other sources of ours (in Zagreb) suggest so as well. Below is the full English translation. █
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
ZAGREB POLICE AUTHORITY
CRIMINAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Economic Crime Unit
Number: XXXXXXXXX
Zagreb, 28 April 2016
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Reference: Your number XXXXXXXXX of 10 March 2016
Pursuant to Art. 206 h. no. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the following is submitted:
SPECIAL REPORT
We note that the police officers of the Economic Crime Unit, Zagreb Police Authority, carried out a criminal investigation based on an anonymous submission received by the National Police Office for Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime (hereinafter: PNUSKOK) on 14 June 2013, alleging abuse on the part of a former official and director of the State Intellectual Property Office, Z . T., which was submitted to District Attorney’s Office in Zagreb on 24 June 2013 and on which a criminal investigation was carried out.
During this criminal investigation, the police officers of this unit again received from the PNUSKOK a criminal complaint with submissions dated 09 January 2013 filed by V. S. against Z. T. and S. M. of the Ministry of Business and Trade with the Office of the District Attorney in Zagreb, the listed criminal charges being identical to the criminal complaint attached to your order, number and date as referred to above.
Please note that we conducted an investigation into the said criminal charges and that everything which we have done was reported to the Municipal State Attorney of Zagreb in our special report number XXXXXXXXX of 24 June 2013, 13 November 2013, 22 November 2013 and 24 June 2014, their number XXXXXXXXX of 18 November 2013.
Police officer
[Signature]
HEAD OF UNIT
[Signature]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Astronomical amounts of money are being given to private companies and even broadcasters (i.e. buying the media) to create a silly festival for Team Battistelli (mirroring what FIFA habitually does)
UNDER Battistelli, who is worse than Blatter of FIFA in many ways, huge secret contracts are given to private companies, including rather dodgy contracts. We have already explained why this is wrong. Battistelli is wasting EPO budget to help distract from his never-ending abuses and now he prepares a political event dressed up as "science" with high risk and paid-for coverage.
“For information,” told us one reader, some numbers are available to highlight the huge degree of Battistelli’s lavish spendings/waste. “Estimated costs,” this reader told us “of “European Inventor of the Year” (2015)” (which was probably cheaper than this year’s) were as follows:
For the costs of “European Inventor of the Year” in 2015 the estimates range from 3 to 7 million Euros.
It is documented that 1.5 million Euros went to CNN which is one of six “media partners” paid for covering the event. Figures for the payments to the other “media partners” are not available.
Another 800.000 Euros went to VOK DAMS Events.
When other costs such as catering, travel and accommodation for all invitees and working time for EPO staff are factored in, the total is at least 3 million Euros and it has been estimated it could be as much as 7 million Euros.
This unaccountable (after so-called ‘reforms’) President is nuts and evidence we have (albeit not sufficiently well verified) suggests he is lying about his salary. Is he also lying about the so-called ‘bicycle affair’. He had an extremely dodgy guy deliver the message. Were bicycles of Battistelli damaged at some EPO parking lot? A better question to ask is, do such bicycles exist in the first place? We would not be shocked if Battistelli (whom someone told us wants his own limousine) only found out that the EPO had gave him a bicycle upon the nonsense used to justifysix bodyguards that cost a fortune at almost the same time as the budget meeting. Does anyone know anything about a limousine and a private lift? We keep hearing rumours about these, but it’s hard to substantiate. Either way, here is a new comment about the ‘bicycle affair’ (as some people now call it):
All this leaves me with a question:
Is there anybody who would know BB’s bicycle from all the other bicycles present in the bicycle parking lot? Or does it carry a plate saying: I am BB’s bicycle? Another question: Does he own the bicycle or is it EPO owned and is BB merely allowed to use it? If there really is really a bicycle at all….. One just wonders……
Here is a new ode about it:
F reshly pumped up and ready to pedal
I deas of reform,threatening to meddle
V ery high increases that could brake the bank
E xtremely tyresome,is this some kind of prank?
F or these proposals he must Raleigh the troops
O ne spokesperson referred to too many holes in the loops
L et’s not get saddled with another fee hike
D on’t vote for it! Get on yer bike!
Even caricatures are now circulating or being circulated, demonstrating just how much EPO staff loathes the crazed boss (0% approval rate). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Mutiny against the man who thinks he’s King [1, 2]
Summary: The feud between the independent (in principle) boards and the man who believes he’s King/Caesar of Eponia escalates, as new details emerge about the latest attack from the ‘King’ against these independent boards whose role is to assure quality at the EPO
THE EPO‘s current President is not a change agent but a demolition agent. Ask Board 28 what they think about this. They recently called it a "crisis".
Things are heating up for ‘Sun King’ (megalomaniac President with a God complex) as leaks have reached The Register which show the latest pushback. In the author’s own words:
Undeterred by staff cutting his brakes, president of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoit Battistelli, has now enraged his organization’s Boards of Appeal.
In a letter [PDF] leaked to The Register, the boards – which act as the EPO’s judicial body – make a series of severe criticisms of Battistelli’s proposed structural reforms that would in effect make him King.
Noting that the aim of the reform was to increase the autonomy of the boards, the association that represents all 28 global boards complains in a letter sent earlier this month that it would in fact “decrease the level of autonomy and independence.”
The Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) also points out that the proposed reforms do not follow “the main internationally recognized principles of judicial independence.”
As with an agreement that the EPO management has been trying to force on worker unions – leading to a series of strikes – one of the biggest complaints that AMBA has is that the new agreement gives the EPO President the ability to completely change the system at a future date.
[...]
As to how such changes ended up in the proposal without being challenged, well that’s because Battistelli and his team didn’t consult with the boards that it was seeking to reform. From the letter: “The Boards have been given little or no opportunity to comment on central aspects of the current proposal. Many of them have not been presented to the Boards at all.”
The boards did make suggestions and proposals, but so far they have gone precisely nowhere. “The vast majority of our proposals, comments and concerns have not been taken into account in the proposed rules and are not reflected in any other way, for example in the explanatory notes or in the ‘Alternatives’ section, which is conspicuous by its absence.”
In short, it’s not just the EPO staff that the wildly unpopular president is trying to become king of, he’s also trying to take over the very independent processes that are supposed to hold his organization’s decisions to account.
All hail King Battistelli!
The above does not merit further comment. We have covered these affairs for years and based on this exclusive new post from Merpel, having failed to send the boards to exile (due to some resistance from the Administrative Council), ENA graduate Sun King is trying a new strategy that can destroy the boards by reducing workload/demand (same tactics which Conservatives in the UK employ against the NHS). It’s all about astronomical price hikes that would make the boards’ reviews too financially prohibitive for most parties. To quote Merpel:
Merpel thought that nothing at the European Patent Office could surprise her any more. How wrong she was. She has now received news of a draft of the latest proposal from the EPO administration to reform the EPO Boards of Appeal. The background is given in her previous post, second and third headings.
As she wrote before, the previous proposals from the EPO President to the Administrative Council for the reform of the Boards of Appeal were criticised since they conflated independence with efficiency and seemed fixated on moving the Boards to another physical location. The new proposal suffers from all the same defects, but now adds another one – the Boards are not sufficiently self-financing, according to Battistelli and his team.
[...]
An increase of the appeal fee is suggested in the draft proposal, from the current level of €1880 to €2940 in 2017, and rising to €7350 by 2021.
Merpel thinks that this is completely outrageous.
Firstly, one reason for appeal is that a refusal by the Examining Division is wrong. As examiners are put under greater pressure for productivity, wrong refusals are expected to be more, not less, common. Applicants will be penalised by such a massive fee increase. There is a provision for refund of the appeal fee in the case of a substantial procedural violation, but it is perfectly possible for the examination to be shoddy without amounting to a substantial procedural violation.
Secondly, considering substantial procedural violations, are the Boards now going to be under pressure not to adjudicate that one has taken place, because it will reduce their funding? That would have the complete opposite of the alleged effect, to decrease their independence not increase it.
Thirdly, Merpel has seen no corresponding proposal to decrease other EPO procedural fees to offset the effect. She will be very surprised if one is forthcoming.
[...]
The next Administrative Council meeting is at the end of June. Merpel sincerely hopes that this mad proposal will be ditched before then, or rejected by the Administrative Council.
This post has attracted insightful comments pretty quickly, presumably from EPO staff and lawyers/attorneys based on the nature of the comments. Here is why Battistelli should be sacked this month:
This is another example of how Batistelli’s changes result in exactly the opposite of what the AC told him to do and how they go completely against the interests and criticisms of the users.
Here is some discussion about the bogus economics:
More analysis needs to be done on the costs of the boards.
An applicant who appeals a decision refusing the application generates a massive annuity windfall for the office. For an applcation refused after ten years experiencing a four year appeal procedure, the extra annuity payments which the office receives would be €6,000 odd. Similarly, a proprietor in an opposition appeal against a decision revoking the patent effectively generates cash for the EPO thorugh the national renewal fees. Once these have been factored in, I am sure the 4% figure would rise to around the 25% mark
And more on the costs:
CA/90/13 (point 31) seems to indicate that the recent increase in appeal fees from €1240 to €1860 would result in a “cost coverage per appeal” of about 6%. Was this found to be overly optimistic or is 4.2% an outdated figure? One assumes that the further increase from €1860 to €1880 did not make much difference. Presumably, neither the 4.2% nor the 6% figures include any renewal fees. This seems unfair since it would seem that a significant portion of those renewal fees result from applications that would be refused (or granted, resulting in shared fees) without the appeal, such that the fees would not reach the office if the appeal was not filed.
The following comment echoes what we have warned about for many years (almost a decade), using the USPTO as a warming sign/testament. Having doubled the number of granted patents there, the USPTO is not much different anymore from a registration/filing system (92% of applications wind up being accepted to be granted). Here is the comment in full:
I think that Merpel has got this right apart from one glaring error. The increasing productivity demands on examiners are far more likely to lead to an increase in “wrong grants” rather than “wrong refusals.” The purpose of the the productivity increases is to raise renewal fee revenue and there are no renewal fees for refusals. The whole system is set up to pressure examiners to grant more patent, so from a production point of view, it is still far easier for an examining division to grant a patent than to refuse it. The German Federal Patents Court and English Patents Courts both revoke the vast majority of hi-tech patents that come before them. Of the ones that survive, it is rare for the claims to survive in the form in which they were granted. That would appear to suggest that the EPO examination is becoming redundant.
My guess would be that in the future, the EPO will be refusing very few patent applications. They may even stop examining (or pretending to examine) them at all. So, let’s not worry too much about the BoAs. They will probably redundant in a few years anyway.
More comments on this take into account renewal fees:
As others have commented here, if the Office really wants to fund the Boards differently, then it would seem equitable to credit the Boards with at least a proportion of the renewal fees earned while a case is under appeal.
On the other hand, since the Office is obliged by TRIPS to provide recourse to a court/board of appeal, one could instead say that the Office should just suck it up and pay for what is a necessary running cost (part of the “deal” that it has to grant EP patents).
Here is another interesting comment which is probably too much for neoliberal ENA graduates to digest considering the financial bubbles and crises they repeatedly led to for decades:
As far as I understand, presently EPO appeals are funded similarly to a car or health insurance.
For example, in case of car insurance, everybody pays a small amount every month to cover a very rare/expensive case of a car accident.
The same, I guess, happens with an EPO appeal fee.
I.e., everybody pays various fees during patent prosecution. In each of those fees, a small percentage (%) is reserved for a relatively rare case of appeal. In this way, a high one-time appeal payment is avoided by paying it in parts with various ‘office actions’.
A proposed increase of appeal fees would mean decrease of all other EPO fees, respectively?
Putting the costs in perspective:
The suggestion of a five fold increase to cover the costs strikes me as being spin to hide the real intentions behind the suggestion. Raising the appeal fee to such a punitive level will dissuade parties from filing appeals except in the most important of cases. The net result will be a reduction in workload and a corresponding shrinkage in the BoAs. A punishment, therefore, for having dared to say boo to the President.
In response to this we have:
Comparing filing, search, examination, designation and a few year’s renewal fees with the proposed level of appeal fee, the phrase “double or quits” springs to mind.
And here comes a tongue-in-cheek remark:
For the EPO president, the quality of the search and the examination at the European patent Office is the best of the world.
For obscure motivations, a small group of applicants (a minority) is challenging this excellent quality, and are lodging appeals to the BoA.
It is logic that such bad behaviour can not be encouraged. A way to improve the system, is to increase the fees of the appeals.
The obligatory FIFA comparisons:
How is it that, at the AC, a large number of the smaller EPC Member States support BB? Does it not remind you of the support Mr Blatter could count on, within FIFA? Could it be that BB (from his palace on the top floor of the Isar building) just like cunning old Seppie, pays these Member States each year an ever-bigger dividend? At the EPO, how might he do that? Here are some possibilities:
1. Shrug off the costs of DG3 (but keep the filing, prosecution, opposition and annuity fees high).
2. Hold annuity fee income high by giving Applicants the possibility to defer patent grant more or less for ever. Take care though to provide, for those few who want it, a quick and dirty grant (and the huge burden of multiple national annuities that goes with it).
3. Squeeze ever more output from ever fewer highly paid employees. “Never mind the quality, feel the width” as the cynical old saying goes.
Seen through that lens, everything BB does makes sense. Sad isn’t it?
Another reminder that the EPO harms Europeans SMEs and discriminates against them:
I do not know why sloppier examination (i.e. more grants) would reduce the number of appeals. It will certainly cause an increase in the number of oppositions and since the number of oppositions is more or less proportional to the number of appeals with an increase of oppositions also the amount of appeals will increase.
It would be illogical (and indeed I agree with Merpel) injust to ncrease the appeal fees to credit the balance of the costs of DG3. If that would be the case also the fee for opposition should be increased in the same way (but I probably should not raise this, because it might give BB some ideas). Anyhow, the idea to only raise the fees for appeals seems to be very biased.
High costs of appeals indeed would seem very harsh in appeals from decisions of the Receiving Section and/or the Examining Division. But how about appeals in disciplinary cases: do our EQE candidates who want to protest about the decisions of the Exam committees need to suffer by paying an appeal fee that they hardly can afford? Or can we see a reduction scheme? Maybe also some reductions for the poor SMEs?
I would suggest to allocate the budget that is needed for the inventor-of-the-year festival (which can easily be discarded with) to DG3. In any case that will already make up for a large part of the current deficit.
Then comes defeatism:
It is the attitude of the member states that I do not understand. Inside the Office, almost everybody would agree that we are heading against the wall – and still speeding up. Now I can understand that the President and his friends favor short term profits; most likely, he will not be in charge any more when the bubble bursts. But the member states should have long term interests in maintaining the European patent system (and their most cherished unitary patent, which is built on it) alive. Why would they let the President kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and even applaud? I really do not get it. They are either extremely naive (but normally they are not when their national interest is involved) or strangely apathetic. Even the Albanian representative who hardly knows what a patent looks like must understand that his country will get less money once people realize that a German patent might be better value than a European one, must he not?
I am afraid we get the world we deserve.
Waste and abuse is then brought up:
Millipede rightly suggests to allocate the budget that is needed for the inventor-of-the-year festival (which can easily be discarded with) to DG3, which would make up for a large part of the current deficit.
The same applies to the budgets for media “partnerships”, body guards, investigators, “technical” cooperation with members states, “medical care” for AC representatives, incompetent VP´s and secret remuneration of the president and many more. As a result the appeal fee could be dispensed with entirely.
Regarding the above-mentioned “inventor-of-the-year festival”, we will soon publish details about the costs associated with it. In order to help our research, may we suggest that people send E-mails or call up “media partners” of the EPO to figure out the financial arrangements?
People have also just noticed the aforementioned report from The Register:
The Presidium and AMBA have commented on the proposed reforms of the BoAs:
https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/31/amba-epo-reform.pdf
as reported by The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/01/epos_boards_of_appeal_rail_against_king_battistelli/
We have got a lot to publish about the EPO today, so stay tuned and please send any relevant/additional material to us (e.g. regarding yesterday’s session in the Bavarian Parliament, which grew worried about the EPO). Things are getting hot on Battistelli’s seat ahead of the Administrative Council’s meeting later this month. As one new comment put it: “So who has the power to fire this guy?” Some compare him to Donald Trump over at The Register. One person responded with: “And more importantly, who has the power to fire the guy who has the power to fire this guy, because he clearly hasn’t been doing his job by not firing this guy, so he’s undeniably either dirty or incompetent, and needs to go along with Mr. Kingie. I’d rather not wait until the guy who has the power to fire the guy who has the power to fire this guy needs firing too for the same offence…”
The problem is, Mr. Kongstad, who is able to get rid of Battistelli, not only fails to do so but also keeps his contracts secret, which makes him rather complicit. █
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