12.08.15
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Recall the Snowden/Manning mass shooter comparison from a month ago (widely debunked)
Summary: The miserable efforts of Team Battistelli to discredit whistleblowers have truly reached an all-time low, with character assassinations which seek to portray whistleblowers as assassins
THE EPO‘s management now pulls dirty tricks highly reminiscent of the CBS smears from last month (see snapshot above). These thugs just keep throwing lots of something at the wall and hope that lawyers will spend a lot of time cleaning up (legal fees to soar, costing the accused a fortune) and maybe — just maybe — something will remain stuck to the wall due to an oversight somewhere. It also fatigues the media, which will likely be as lazy as always and just latch onto hit-baiting buzzwords like “Nazi” or “sniper”.
“Yes, it’s guilt by connotation and endless repetition.”In accusations against staff representative Elizabeth Hardon we found some of the most laughable accusation we have ever come across. They are totally obsessing over the word “sniper”, which is mentioned no less than 16 times!
Yes, it’s guilt by connotation and endless repetition. Meet the “sniper”! What a convenient stigma for brushing aside one’s human rights.
Who wrote this nonsense? What an incredible ‘coincidence’ that the same people who allegedly expose the abuses of those in positions of power just happen to be closeted armed Nazis or something along those lines (fictional, as board members strongly rejected these accusations and firmly threw aside the so-called ‘evidence’). It’s an imaginary narrative, perpetuated using people whose background includes wars in the middle east (where torture and dirty tricks are used to extract fake ‘evidence’ that suits an agenda).
Elizabeth Hardon has already responded briefly to the ludicrous allegations (we have seen them all). Her letter says:
Dear [...],
We all know the famous quote “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” In order to allow staff to see for itself whether justice is being done in my case, I will share the essential parts of my disciplinary procedure with you [...] Please be aware that this is the administration’s version of the “facts” – not mine. I emphatically deny all the accusations against me, which I consider to be malicious and absurd, in particular the harassment complaint that was filed by [...], not by the alleged victims and the accusation of complicity with the suspended DG3 member, the accusa ons against whom were considered unsubstantiated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. This makes me complicit in a “crime” that doesn’t exist.
Elizabeth Hardon
So the EPO is now throwing accusations by proxy to slander one’s name, not by direct evidence or even direct accusation. How low can these people stoop? That’s like someone bringing an accusation or a legal case against Battistelli based on something someone once heard from Battistelli’s high school mate (without that mate being present or a participant at all).
“Behind it there may just be union-busters, not actual investigators.”There are many political parallels to be made here. It’s a vicious attack on character. That’s the strategy. Remember the Julian Assange cat ‘story’? It was posted by stenographers in the media 4.5 years ago (after Cablegate from Manning). Just see one of the many articles about it, for example “Julian Assange, Cat Hater” in the New York Times (which previously smeared or belittled Assange by talking about his body odor).
To us, in our humble assessment, it seems like another modus operandi. Behind it there may just be union-busters, not actual investigators. In the text we find bits like these: “10. The Control Risk Group prepared a separate report relating to the position of the defendant on this matter (Annex 4)) It concerned allegations of harassment relating to her conduct at a meeting of the Munich which took place on 10.12.2014.”
“Shame on Control Risk Group. Will they attempt the same against bloggers and journalists too?”So ‘British Blackwater’ is now in the justice business? How hilarious is that?
Control Risk Group is a union buster with a long track record in Europe — a provably notorious track record. They probably start with the story/narrative/accusation and then try to fit some pieces into in, with the intention of driving a wedge between staff ‘leaders’ and those who follow them, right before destroying their lives altogether.
Shame on Control Risk Group. Will they attempt the same against bloggers and journalists too?
What’s the “sniper” thing all about? Apparently a joke. I habitually make jokes to my wife about the likelihood that someone at the EPO’s management will hire a sniper to target journalists. Is that so unreasonable a joke? It’s quite a common kind of joke.
If these are the standards for accusing a member of staff and labelling that person a violent physical danger, then we can only assume that similarly crafty and artistic methods are being used to defame the judge and overwhelm him with a huge number of ludicrous claims, thereby increasing legal fees (watch what the prosecutor had done to Aaron Swartz shortly before he committed suicide).
“It’s a nasty strategy which warps the case from one where justice prevails to one where the depth of one’s pocket becomes the sole contributor towards the outcome.”The 22-page text accusing Hardon (with a lot of repetition) was written not by Web-savvy people* but by expensive, rather unskilled staff** (maybe lawyers from the outside) for the purpose of defending Team Battistelli at any cost, especially by passing a huge burden of legal costs to the defendant. We saw this done extensively in the Swartz case. It’s a nasty strategy which warps the case from one where justice prevails to one where the depth of one’s pocket becomes the sole contributor towards the outcome. In other words, it’s tilted, by design, into a fight over who’s more wealthy. When it’s the EPO indemnifying/reimbursing the President (or Team Battistelli) with approval of budget coming from Team Battistelli, this is a no-winner to anyone but Team Battistelli.
For more similarities check out the case against Thomas Drake (whose example Edward Snowden learned from and thus avoided). His government drove him deep into the ground — and out of money — by throwing amazing (and invalid) charges, after he had merely blown the whistle (first internally) regarding improper NSA practices, as he should have done, as per the oath he took.
“Denying the EPO of funds by boycotting it might be the most effective option at this stage.”The EPO’s management once again shows its complete stupidity (it not senility) because this is a Streisand Effect 101. Whenever they attempt to strike at the staff internally there will be a much bigger reaction externally. They don’t seem to have learned from experience and they are digging themselves deeper and deeper inside a hole, having just spent nearly a millions dollars on reputation laundering.
The EPO is now a lunatic organisation. People can’t easily fight this lunatic because despite it being a lunatic it is a well-funded lunatic. Toxic combination. Denying the EPO of funds by boycotting it might be the most effective option at this stage. It would be a form of protest, calling for if not demanding serious reforms. █
____
* They don’t even get the domain name right. It’s techrights.org (usually), not techrights.com (which is set up as a universal redirect).
** Skilled staff with some dignity and self respect would not be willing (even if capable) to produce such abhorrent attacks on good people.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The European Patent Office (EPO) “going full rogue” and punishing those who uphold justice…
Summary: The latest complaints about the EPO’s attempts to just magically ‘vanish’ its potential opposition, or do some ‘staff laundering’ by moving entire sections of the Office far away
THE more we write about the EPO, the more we think of Europe in its darkest times (in recent history). The management of the EPO is just ‘disappearing’ or metaphorically executing opposition, much like Stalin’s USSR or Hitler’s Germany back in the days. You know that this is happening when a superpower casts rivals/dissidents as crazy or dangerous, trying to associate them with violence and hate, much like the media tries to characterise Julian Assange as a violent rapist (physical threat) who is escaping justice because of irrational “paranoia” (craziness).
Last night we received the following document, which we’ve put into text, as follows:
Employment at our Brave New EPO:
you can’t win, you can’t play even & you cannot quit the game!!!
Dear colleagues,
Please check the latest proposal of the President to the Administrative Council: CA/98/15. The document pleads forcefully for moving DG3 to Vienna, which will do nothing to strengthen its independence but must rather be seen as a revenge for its independence. Additionally, under point 34 et seq. the document proposes “post-service restrictions” for all staff. This means that the Office intends to reserve for itself the right to decide whether or not you may take on a given new job after you have left the Office!
Such non-compete clauses or “restrictive covenants” are used in certain professions under certain circumstances. The extent to which such clauses are legally allowed varies depending on the jurisdiction but tends to be strictly regulated and may be subject to compensatory payments for income lost, see e.g.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wettbewerbsverbot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
In Europe, such restrictions are normally only allowable if the employer can show a reasonable business interest. Both the legality and enforceability of such clauses by the Office (which is not in a competitive business) are highly doubtful. Again: the main aim seems to be revenge on staff that shows a little too much independence.
After having seriously deteriorated the career perspectives for normal staff and having introduced punitive sick-leave and invalidity conditions, the Battistelli administration now tries to block normal staff members from leaving the Office for another job.
Interestingly, the compensatory payments also open the possibility of monthly golden handshakes for loyal managers who may be forced to leave the Office when the wind turns.
The message is clear:
the only option is unconditional loyalty
Much of this isn’t entirely new, hence not so shocking. We covered this before (on numerous occasions) and our source, who isn’t from the EPO, called it “the newest crap…”
It seems evident that a lot of people not only inside the EPO but also outside the EPO are extremely concerned. A new poll shows that almost everyone is concerned, including stakeholders in Europe (like businesses and lawyers). “Last time I looked at non-competition agreements was decades ago,” our source told us, and “the case law in many countries imposed the following:
- Limited in duration
- Limited geographically
- Limited in scope
“The usual allowable delay was something like one year, and there had to be consideration [€€€] if anything more stringent was demanded.
“I haven’t seen what they specifically want to impose. Up to now, it happened that examiners switched sides quasi overnight, but this never really posed a problem.
“The EPO is going full rogue, and resorting to techniques tried and tested by despots for time immemorial… I am the upholder of the law, and he who questions questions my power breaks the law.”
In our next article we are going to show that “full rogue” may be an understatement. The EPO has gone lunatic. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.07.15
Posted in America, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 8:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A roundup of patent news from the US and from Europe, focusing on various themes which we have been covering for many years
Unfair, Discriminatory and Unreasonable FRAND (no FRIEND)
POPULAR patent lawyers’ Web site/blog, Patently-O (usually quite subjective on the subject of software patents, although not as grossly so as IAM or Gene Quinn, whom we’ll allude to later on) has just published a piece from Prof. Contreras, who therein remarks on the now-popular subject which is RAND (or FRAND, an even more misleading euphemism because it adds the word “fair” to something which is clearly unfair, never mind unreasonable and discriminatory, definitely no FRIEND). We wrote a lot about RAND/FRAND more than three quarters of a decade ago (perhaps 18,000 articles ago), especially in relation to Europe because there were technical parliamentary debates about it, accompanied by heavy lobbying by Microsoft, very persistently in fact so as to exclude Free/Open Source software as a matter of law. A Microsoft front group is now lobbying on the FRAND front again, using a new livery, “All Things FRAND”. So watch out! This new guest post by Prof. Contreras cites a somewhat popular caselaw, involving Microsoft’s patent war on Android/Linux, fought through Motorola before the Google takeover (see our Wiki page about it).
“We wrote a lot about RAND/FRAND more than three quarters of a decade ago (perhaps 18,000 articles ago), especially in relation to Europe because there were technical parliamentary debates about it, accompanied by heavy lobbying by Microsoft, very persistently in fact so as to exclude Free/Open Source software as a matter of law.”To quote one relevant (to us) part of the piece: “Interestingly, this case represents the second appellate decision this year in which the admissibility of comparable license agreements has been challenged in RAND royalty determinations. In the prior case, Microsoft v. Motorola, 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit was more deferential to the District Court’s exclusion of potentially comparable license agreements. In Microsoft, the Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s exclusion of three arm’s length license agreements to which Motorola was a party for reasons including the fact that some agreements were entered into to settle or forestall litigation, they included patents other than the patents at issue, they included cross-licenses and they included royalty caps. It will be interesting to see how the Circuits reconcile their interpretations of this key evidentiary standard in future cases.”
Litigation/Extortion by (Patent) Proxy
Now, recall and consider the latest output from other pro-patent maximalism sites (meaning they want more feuds, hence more lawyer income). Right now it’s IAM which, without using the T word (troll), reveals that Panasonic too, not just companies like Microsoft, supports outside trolls for business objectives (Microsoft uses trolls like Intellectual Ventures and MOSAID, which has been renamed in a likely effort to dodge negative publicity). These companies use their patent portfolio in a very mischievous way, passing patents to trolls like Ericsson did. Ericsson’s troll too has changed its name after receiving a lot of negative press. Remember that Ericsson is a European company and take note of new or emergent patent trolls in Europe. This plague is spreading across the Atlantic.
“These companies use their patent portfolio in a very mischievous way, passing patents to trolls like Ericsson did.”Notice the connection of all the above companies to the EPO (we covered all of these before) and recall the special the role of one of them in discriminatory patent granting at the EPO (or closer/special contacts).
EPO is Innovative! According to Shallow ‘Placements’…
Speaking of contacts, we must wonder if this new patent lawyers’ analysis is basically some kind of media placement or presence (this new one from Managing IP also looks similar to classic puff pieces, but not exactly so). It paints the EPO as some kind of a super-advanced system where — gasp! — video conferencing is used. Welcome to the 1990s!
“It paints the EPO as some kind of a super-advanced system where — gasp! — video conferencing is used. Welcome to the 1990s!”“Many of us,” wrote the author, “are familiar with conducting business by video conference. It provides an extra option for talking to remote clients that is much less expensive and time-consuming than an in-person meeting, but can result in a better personal connection than a phone meeting.”
So basically the whole article then hails the EPO for using — gasp! — video conferencing. Wow, the innovation!
EPO Staff Not Gonna Take It Anymore
Well, it’s now increasingly clear that the EPO is desperate for positive publicity because it is widely loathed. Another EPO staff protest will take place this Thursday, as planned quite some time ago. The exact plans are now being outlined by SUEPO in their new update (top of this public page). To quote SUEPO: “The next demonstration will take place on Thursday 10 December, starting from the Pschorrhöfe building at 12h. The demonstrators will march peacefully to the local Palace of Justice.
“Isn’t it funny that the EPO’s management tries to frame staff as the issuer of threats when it’s actually the management doing so?”“With these demonstrations staff protests against the persistent attacks on its staff representatives, culminating in the suspension of and disciplinary procedures against 3 Union officials in Munich.”
Of course there will (as usual) be attempt to crush these protests by all means possible/available, even ahead of time. It’s commonly done using threats directed at organisers. Isn’t it funny that the EPO’s management tries to frame staff as the issuer of threats when it’s actually the management doing so? Well, a French politician who represents French workers abroad (that’s a lot of French patent examiners) rapidly becomes Battistelli’s Nemesis and we hope these protests will help demonstrate to more politicians that not all is well and serious reform is desperately needed.
Software Patents
Longtime readers already know that our main concern about the EPO has always been software patents in Europe. Software professionals universally reject software patents, but they’re not the ones voting on such matters if the likes of Battistelli want to meet so-called ‘production’ goals, meaning, by definition of these goals, granting patents in more domains and granting invalid/bogus patents.
“Europe’s patent system is now having far broader an issue than just patent scope.”Gene Quinn, a “blowhard” (to quote IP Troll Tracker) patent lawyer and longtime proponent of software patents, is still at it. He and I exchanged over a hundred messages in Twitter, only to find out that he never wrote any code that he can point to (he claimed he had written some but was unable to find evidence). He just doesn’t understand how software works and cannot tell the difference between data/input and program code. He is now trying to give people tips for patenting software, even after US courts repeatedly ruled against (many) such patents.
Europe’s patent system is now having far broader an issue than just patent scope. At the end — and we hope or suppose patent examiners will agree — we sorely need a patent policy that represents public opinion and maximises benefit to the public. Over-patenting leads to higher costs on everything (the ‘lawyers tax’) and can also suppress innovation and development, either by means of deterrence/fear or by over-encumbering litigation, sometimes initiated by opportunistic patent trolls (occasionally operating at the behest of larger entities seeking to annihilate rivals, as noted above). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Letter regarding the EPO’s witch-hunt (union-busting in particular) shows just how terrified the management really is (of outside scrutiny for its actions)
THE EPO‘s "gestapo" (as staff calls it), or I.U. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], has been responsible for institutional harassment on behalf of Team Battistelli, which is rather ironic considering the claim that the I.U. was originally established to combat harassment.
“They are basically censoring one’s victim so as to further isolate the victim and prevent EPO staff from starting an up-in-arms uproar.”We are disturbed but not entirely surprised to learn about the I.U.’s (along with Team Battistelli) tactics. They are basically censoring one’s victim so as to further isolate the victim and prevent EPO staff from starting an up-in-arms uproar. I know this myself, having never published any legal letters sent to me by the EPO’s goons (marked repeatedly as strictly confidential, using various types of wording to emphasise this point). They clearly want to keep their legal bullying secret, so only the response to these (e.g. from my lawyer) were ever published.
There is clearly a modus operandi here and it must be shown publicly in order for other (past and potentially future) victims to know their rights and notify the public. Team Battistelli is doing something which may in itself be against the rules (divide and rule approach), as embargoing letters based on false pretenses is not only frowned upon. It serves to impede real justice, such as denial of one’s access to a lawyer. That too is something that the I.U. is notorious for. It defies logic and breaks some international rules/conventions.
“It defies logic and breaks some international rules/conventions.”We suspect that people other than us, among publishers in particular, also received threats from the EPO. See the wrong name in the letter sent to me and also consider what looks like spiked coverage in the BBC and self-censorship at WIPR (cold feet or chilling effect are quite likely the impact of such threatening letters).
Today we want to present this slightly redacted letter which shows just to what lengths Team Battistelli goes in trying to suppress information:
Compare these demands of secrecy to some of the attempts to censor me, in articles which exclude the legal threats precisely because of overzealous reactions such as the above. Articles on the matter, chronologically sorted, include:
We invite willing readers who have also been similarly gagged to pass material for us to carefully publish. There is a large-scale suppression of truth going on and the larger the scale, the more it will embarrass the EPO and derail its aggressive witch-hunt. █
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The BBC had an article critical of the EPO, but it was never published and the reporter went silent quite so suddenly and mysteriously
THE management of the EPO has been getting away with a lot of malicious activities. Almost nobody stepped down, except the spokesperson apparently (that was last year). There is brain drain among patent examiners; there can’t be brain drain in management because one must suppose that there are brains in the management to begin with (not just a bunch of people with glorified business degrees).
“We now cautiously suspect self-censorship, maybe as part of the EPO’s media manipulation or BBC editorial policy (remember that Bill Gates repeatedly paid huge amounts of money to the BBC and this article directly implicates Microsoft).”For almost a week now we have been waiting for the BBC to publish an article, towards which we provided comments/input/documents (my lawyer did too). Based on what I was told, it was nearly ready for publication and a lot of work had been put into/invested behind it. We now cautiously suspect self-censorship, maybe as part of the EPO's media manipulation or BBC editorial policy (remember that Bill Gates repeatedly paid huge amounts of money to the BBC and this article directly implicates Microsoft).
We already have a leaked document about nearly $1,000,000 spent in just one year by a US company (contracted by the EPO) for EPO media presence, whatever that means.
“One hypothesis we have is that the BBC approached the EPO for comment and the EPO’s media strategy worked (a campaign to keep the media quiet and never critical of the EPO).”For no apparent reason, the reporter who approached us (we never approached the BBC) is suddenly stonewalling. We just wonder if someone at the BBC has been suppressing publication of this article about the EPO. From actually approaching me (to comment on an article already in progress), the reporter/s suddenly went into a deafening silence. Several days later we wrote regarding the status of the piece (polite queries on updates) but received nothing but silence in return.
One hypothesis we have is that the BBC approached the EPO for a comment and the EPO’s media strategy worked (a campaign to keep the media quiet and never critical of the EPO). It’s also possible that the BBC approached Microsoft for comments, whereupon something major happened. An alternative hypothesis is that someone at the BBC decided to spike the piece. As we have been covering here for years (in nearly a dozen different articles), many Microsoft UK employees had defected to the BBC’s top positions (high-level management). Readers can make of it what they will…
The bizarre thing is that at about the same time (as us being approached) even a Microsoft advocacy site dared to cover (and not in a very flattering way) this scandal. It wrote: “The allegations were made by Roy Schestowitz, a software engineer in UK, based on an internal EPO email regarding patent documents submitted by Microsoft, whose screenshot he also published on his website along with a blog post last month. The email, authored by a senior manager within the EPO allegedly contains statement confirming the “highest priority” for Microsoft’s patents, while also talks about a “close cooperation project” between the EPO and Microsoft. There is also a specific reference to Microsoft’s eventual decision to “revert to KIPO (the Korean Intellectual Property Office) as their ISA (International Searching Authority) of choice “should the results not be fast enough”, which has allegedly ticked off the EPO enough for the threats.”
The BBC already had a piece about this in its pipeline. Why was it never published? Why does the BBC refuse to even talk about it? Until or unless they decide to provide answers, all we can do is speculate. The BBC, based on our extensive search, never wrote anything negative about the EPO. Shouldn’t that alone be a damning testament to the bias? █
“We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.”
–Ashley Highfield, Microsoft and then BBC (like revolving doors)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The largest staff union of the EPO says that the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market is now intervening in the EPO affairs, but more intervention may be needed
YESTERDAY we published nearly ten articles about the EPO, focusing on various different issues. SUEPO has just stated that it got “Support from OHIM Staff Committee” (Staff Committee of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market). OHIM, which has been around for a long time (established or formed in March of 1994) is said to have “sent a note for the attention of the Members of the Administrative Board and the Budget Committee” and to quote OHIM itself (there is no link to the original): “The OHIM Staff Committee feels deeply concerned and would like to call your attention to the urgent situation at the European Patent Office (EPO) [...] three staff representatives were suspended from service in Munich with immediate effect. The EPO has initiated disciplinary proceedings against them. Staff committees count on monitoring bodies such as the Administrative Board to make sure that staff representatives are free to express the worries of staff without fear of punishment for doing so. In other words, staff representatives need extra protection in order to avoid possible abuses of power [...] the Administrative Council should express its concern, in uncertain terms, to the EPO management.”
“This is the hallmark of a failed state, or something that can be expected in repressive regimes like China’s.”It has become exceedingly disturbing that there is almost nobody to talk to. This is the hallmark of a failed state, or something that can be expected in repressive regimes like China’s. Nobody expects the European Union to leave out on a limb such highly-educated people, let alone people who are drug dealers, convicted criminals, etc. How can this be and how come nobody dares to raise concerns in public, except a few brave politicians (them too the EPO has been abusing for daring to speak out)? Some explanations for this were noted in the article whose translation [cref 87037 we posted last night, but here is another interesting body of text (someone sent it under the subject line “Cooperation with the competent national authorities“) that helps explain how we got here and why it’s hard to get out of there.
The national authorities of our Member States have rather systematically denied responsibility for staff in the EPO, referring to its international character (“we have only one vote in the Council”) and its immunity. In doing so they conveniently forget that Art. 20(1) of the EPO Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) demands that “The Organisation shall co-operate at all times with the competent authorities of the Contracting States in order to facilitate the proper administration of justice, to ensure the observance of police regulations and regulations concerning public health, labour inspection or other similar national legislation, and to prevent any abuse of the privileges, immunities and facilities provided for in this Protocol.” (emphasis added)
[There is] little, if any, cooperation on the part of the Organisation with the national authorities “to ensure the observance of regulations concerning public health and labour inspection or other similar national legislation.” In particular, the Office’s refusal to allow the national Labour Inspectorates to audit the EPO is clearly not in line with the letter and the spirit of the PPI.
Data protection seems to be an area of “similar national legislation” where the Office should co-operate with the competent authorities of the Member States but refuses to do so. In this context it’s important to again point out that the level of data protection at the EPO has been withering under our current President. We have been informed that the last person with technical knowledge of data protection issues is taking up another job in the Office. As a consequence the situation will be that – whatever the rules on paper – in practice there will no longer be any credible data protection in the Office. This should be a matter of grave concern not only to staff, but also to our applicants.
The infringements of fundamental rights currently imposed on EPO staff, e.g. infringements of freedom of association 2 and the draconian “health” reforms, are an abuse of the privileges and immunities that according to Art. 20 PPI should be prevented. Data protection would fall under the expression “other similar regulations.”
We still hope to see some effective intervention from outside bodies which have the capability/capacity to influence the Administrative Council or take direct action in the name of human rights and the rule of law. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
How much longer can the EPO persist with the ‘vocal minority’ narrative?
Summary: New results from World IP Review (WIPR) serve to reinforce claims of rather extreme unpopularity inside and outside the European Patent Office (EPO)
ACCORDING to a recent, long-running survey from WIPR, which routinely covers EPO matters: “More than 95% of WIPR readers are concerned by the continuing dispute at the European Patent Office (EPO), our most recent survey has revealed. [...] The results showed that 96% of respondents have concerns.”
“If this was a democracy (which it certainly isn’t), where approval rates do play a role in elections and other big decisions, would no leaders be ousted or forced to step down?”This was a one-question survey, but it is followed by comments and responses supplied by the EPO’s PR/spokespeople. The figures speak for themselves really.
If this was a democracy (which it certainly isn’t), where approval rates do play a role in elections and other big decisions, would no leaders be ousted or forced to step down?
Over at IP Kat too there are about a dozen new comments today, in a thread which got derailed by anonymous pro-EPO comments (this seems to be part of a pattern). This one commenter “thought Battistelli was aiming for another job within the French government, once Sarkozy would be president again” (we have a whole Wiki page about Nicolas Sarkozy here, linking to our coverage about Sarkozy).
“Slowly the president’s hidden agenda emerges,” said another commenter, “destroy the EPO, so that the UPC might be the only viable system” (we know that Battistelli likes to pretend that the opposition at the EPO is really directed at UPC, even though it's not). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.06.15
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A response letter from SUEPO outlines some of the mischievous claims (if not libelous claims) made by Benoît Battistelli in his private correspondence, sent to French politician Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ (and perhaps to others too)
WE previously wrote about Mr. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, taking stock of his exchange of letters with the EPO‘s President, Benoît Battistelli [1, 2, 3, 4], who habitually defames his own staff [1, 2, 3]. Some French-speaking readers helped us translate the correspondence when SUEPO did not have any translations (yet). Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ is now including the rebuttals from staff representatives, in the face of extreme accusations from Battistelli himself, citing his mouthpiece of choice, Les Échos (the EPO’s “media partner”).
we have been hoping for a translation of the position paper from SUEPO and it has just been published in fact, in PDF form. We reproduce it below in HTML form:
30 November 2015
su15432cl – 3.2
Position of SUEPO with regard to the letter from Mr. Battistelli sent to Mr. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, Parliamentary Deputy for French Citizens abroad
The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) has 3400 members among the 6800 employees agents distributed among the four sites of the EPO. It is the only union which represents a significant proportion of the EPO staff. It is apolitical, financed solely by the contributions from its members, and is affiliated to the Union Syndicale Fédérale and to the EPSU.
“The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) has 3400 members among the 6800 employees agents…”SUEPO has taken note of the reaction by Mr. Battistelli to the letter from Mr. Pierre-Yves le Borgn’, Parliamentary Deputy for French citizens abroad for the region of Germany and Austria, where two of the EPO sites are based, among them the head office of the Organization. We are sending this letter to Mr. le Borgn’, as parliamentary deputy, in the hope that he will publish it on his Website as he did with the letter from Mr. Battistelli.
Failure to respect confidentiality and presumption of innocence
First, it must be pointed out that Mr. Battistelli is failing to respect the principle of confidentiality of enquiries and disciplinary procedures which are in progress. The information divulged in his letter to Mr. P.-Y. Le Borgn’ easily allows for the alleged culprits to be identified.
“The attitude of the President of the EPO would be shocking if he were only an outside observer. However, at the EPO, the President is likewise judge and jury in matters of sanctions against the personnel, and Mr. Battistelli has already demonstrated that he has in no way availed himself of the opinion or advice of the discipline commission, even when they are unanimous and positive in favour of the staff member concerned.”In Mr. Battistelli’s eyes, the culpability of the representatives of the personnel and union members concerned is already established; they in turn vehemently reject the unfounded accusations made against them. The attitude of the President of the EPO would be shocking if he were only an outside observer. However, at the EPO, the President is likewise judge and jury in matters of sanctions against the personnel, and Mr. Battistelli has already demonstrated that he has in no way availed himself of the opinion or advice of the discipline commission, even when they are unanimous and positive in favour of the staff member concerned. One must therefore anticipate the worst in respect of the colleagues targeted by this new wave of repression.
Failure to respect a matter under judgment – Defamation
Nor does Mr. Battistelli respect the elementary rules of law with regard to our colleague suspended from DG3. He maintains that this colleague is culpable after the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, the only body qualified to rule on the case, has already concluded that the proceedings were not admissible, the EPO being limited to making general accusations not substantiated by any convincing evidence (the decision by the Extended Board of Appeal is now public, see http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2015/11/read-it-for-yourself-enlarged-board.html).
“These serious accusations are not only unfounded, they are miserable travesties.”Mr. Battistelli is nevertheless taking it upon himself to make public accusations of “Nazi propaganda” and the “storing of weapons”, among others, even appending to his letter an article from the journal “Les Echos” which portrays SUEPO members as “”enemies” of the interior”. These serious accusations are not only unfounded, they are miserable travesties.
How is one to believe in internal justice at the EPO?
What credibility can now be placed in the process of internal “justice” in view of what is happening, and taking account also of the following facts:
- The enquiry directives introduced by Mr. Battistelli, and the manner in which they are put into effect do not respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by international conventions, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on all the Member States of the EPO. Nothing justifies the Administrative Council of the EPO, on which those same Member States sit, from exempting itself from that commitment.
- Mr. Battistelli is simultaneously taking on the roles of investigator, prosecutor, and judge within the framework of internal regulations which he himself has amended or introduced. He has no hesitation in exempting himself from the recommendations of the regulator bodies (which have nothing more than a consultative role) whenever they are favourable to the personnel.
- Mr. Battistelli does not hesitate, however, to violate these rules which he himself has introduced, such as those relating to strikes or the arrangements for sick leave, when it suits him to do so.
- Mr. Battistelli has refused to implement the ruling by the Court of Appeal at The Hague of February 2015 relating to violations of human rights by the EPO.
- The methods used by the investigation unit violate the internal directive which is supposed to establish the framework for its work, as well as violating fundamental rights.
- The suspensions of three personnel representatives in Munich took place 18 months (!) after – according to him – so-called “serious incidents” are alleged to have been incurred within the staff representation body. This suspension occurred in reprisal on the day following a meeting of the personnel representatives.
A strange conception of social dialogue: SUEPO in the first instance.
The representatives of the personnel suspended are, respectively, the President, the former President, and the Treasurer of SUEPO in Munich. In addition to these colleagues, three other representatives of the personnel, likewise SUEPO union representatives, became ill as a result of their treatment by the management within the framework of disgraceful internal enquiries. At the time of writing, the health of a number of them remains a cause for concern.
“The suspensions of three personnel representatives in Munich took place 18 months (!) after – according to him – so-called “serious incidents” are alleged to have been incurred within the staff representation body.”Whatever Mr Battistelli may say, there is no prospect of any framework agreement with SUEPO, and if Mr. Battistelli maintains that this impasse is the responsibility of the union, which has suspended negotiations, he fails to point out that this was only a reaction to the serious acts of pressure exerted on the members of the union during the discussions. How is it possible to re-establish a social dialogue at a time when the pressures being exerted by the management on the most high profile elected union representatives are such that they are now suspended (or have been made ill) and threatened with dismissal? Moreover, what value would such an agreement have if one of the parties has demonstrated that it does not feel itself bound by its own rules?
The “performance” of the EPO – At what price?
The policy adopted by Benoît Battistelli and implemented by the Chief Human Resources Officer Elodie Bergot allows for the appearance of a short-term increase in productivity (according to figures of which the validity is impossible to verify, since
they are not certified by any independent body). We must express the greatest reservations with regard to the consequences of this policy in the middle and long term, particularly with regard to the quality of the work provided (which it will only be possible to appreciate in reality after a period of one to two years, taking account of the specific features of the procedures at the EPO).
“An increasing number of staff members have confided in us that they are coming to work even when ill, since they fear being targeted by reprisal measures.”In addition to this, the very great pressure at work, and the state of health of the staff, visibly under stress, disturb us greatly. The changes introduced in 2015 in the manner in which days taken for sick leave are compensated (downwards) render any comparison with previous years impossible. An increasing number of staff members have confided in us that they are coming to work even when ill, since they fear being targeted by reprisal measures.
It is in this context that we have drawn the attention of the Administrative Council of the EPO to the increase in the number of suicides (5 in 42 months) following the systematic refusal of Mr. Battistelli and of Ms. Bergot (CHRO) to arrange for an independent enquiry into their causes. Moreover, they continue to oppose vehemently an audit of the EPO by the competent local authorities (Labour Inspectorate), despite the fact that the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of the Organization makes such co-operation mandatory in this sector (Article 20 PPI).
“It is propositions such as these which Mr. Battistelli sets forth in his letter, demonstrating the excesses of his actions and the absence of respect of the most elementary principles of law, and seriously damaging the reputation of our Organization.”The conspiracy theory
Who can seriously believe in this day and age that a plot could be hatched by a handful of radical union members lurking in the shadows, with the sole aim of discrediting the management of the EPO and of impeding the introduction of the Unitary Patent, given that a rapprochement with the European Union could only protect the employees of the EPO from the deviations and excesses from which they are presently suffering?
“The Administrative Council of the EPO, which up to now has turned a blind eye to the actions of Mr. Battistelli and his entourage must now act.”Finally, who can seriously believe that the representatives of the personnel and the union would harbour in their midst a concentration of malignant and dangerous beings, whom the personnel had the lack of foresight to elect (on several separate and repeated occasions)?
It is propositions such as these which Mr. Battistelli sets forth in his letter, demonstrating the excesses of his actions and the absence of respect of the most elementary principles of law, and seriously damaging the reputation of our Organization. The EPO has become an object of concern and/or of consternation in the international community which is concerned with matters of patents.
The Administrative Council of the EPO, which up to now has turned a blind eye to the actions of Mr. Battistelli and his entourage must now act. Rapidly.
Joachim Michels
President, SUEPO Central
Elizabeth Hardon
Vice-President, SUEPO Central
President SUEPO Munich
Wolfgang Manntz
Vice-President SUEPO Central
President SUEPO Berlin
Alain Rosé
Vice-President SUEPO Central
President SUEPO The Hague
David Dickinson
Vice-President SUEPO Central
President SUEPO Vienna
cc. Mr. Emmanuel Macron, Ministry of the Economy and Industry
William Bourdon, Liesbeth Zegveld, SUEPO Legal Counsels
As a blogger, I myself am not under great risk because there is not much that the EPO can legally do to me (they tried) and they certainly cannot fire me (or pressure my employer to fire me as Microsoft attempted to do, as he is personally quite supportive of my writings about Microsoft and the EPO).
My utmost concern right now is the safety of staff representatives and by extension all staff. Benoît Battistelli is clearly attempting a 'decapitation' strategy here, mixed with the tactics perfected by Željko Topić. This is just wrong. It’s unjust. It’s outrageous!
Seeing that apathetic (or too scared to protest) staff is being almost outnumbered right now by SUEPO supporters is a sign that things are changing. People have defected away from the brutes and there is nothing that the brutes can pull off to undo this.
Now that those ‘pesky’ or ‘nosy’ politicians get involved in the EPO’s affairs, having already lost the union-busting battle (with external help from Control Risks), the EPO’s management resorts to media distortion, which is in turn being used in a desperate effort to brainwash these politicians. Mr. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ has already highlighted (in his latest letter) that the EPO is now engaged in a pricey reputation laundering campaign and he is certainty wise enough (and sufficiently well-informed) to know that Les Échos is the EPO’s “media partner”, i.e. Battistelli’s mouthpiece. What the EPO ‘planted’ there (among other places) has as much legitimacy as what’s found in tabloids du jour. █
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
–George Orwell
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