07.11.16
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 6:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team Battistelli dragged back to The Hague this week
International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Photo credit: Reuters
Summary: Ahead of this week’s proceedings against the EPO, reports of the EPO’s latest (top-level management) violations, aggression, and dangerous push towards EPO extinction
THE last time IP Watch wrote about the EPO it was a puff piece with Battistelli in it (a so-called ‘interview’ that had softball questions). Earlier today IP Watch published this long piece from which we quote some key parts with added highlights:
Special Report: Union Lawsuit Claims EPO Has Prevented It From Functioning; Office Claims Immunity
Deteriorating relations between European Patent Office (EPO) management and staff union SUEPO have sparked another lawsuit in the district court in The Hague, Netherlands. The matter, which will be heard in a 15 July summary proceeding, alleges a pattern of threats, dismissals, suspensions from service and gagging of union members, said Prakken d’Oliveira attorney Liesbeth Zegveld, who represents SUEPO and its Dutch branch. Around one-third of union officials have been suspended, investigated or gagged, effectively preventing the union from functioning, she said in an interview.
The lawsuits are just part of the ongoing turmoil affecting the EPO. Reform of the Boards of Appeal (BoA) has also proved controversial, and there are concerns about the reluctance of the Administrative Council to get a grip on the staff-management battle.
The EPO said that, as an international organisation, it has immunity from such suits, as recently held by a German court. It defended its changes to the BoA, and announced an autumn conference for stakeholders to discuss an independent study on office social issues.
[...]
As for staff efforts to spur the AC to take control of the downward-spiralling situation: In a 22 June letter, the EPO-FLIER team, which identifies itself as “a group of concerned staff of the EPO who wish to remain anonymous due to the prevailing harsh social climate and absence of rule of law” at the office, begged Council members to assert their “fiduciary duty” over the organisation.
The AC took responsibility when it issued a resolution with “clear and achievable objectives for the President,” the open letter said. “Very briefly there was a marked improvement of the atmosphere in the Office.” But instead of complying with the unambiguous instructions, Battistelli has challenged his supervisory body, it said. “Mr. Battistelli is causing immeasurable damage to the Office; he is now untenable.”
Among other problems, the letter said, applicants have started noticing a decline in the quality of EPO patents, and, because of the ongoing disputes, the office no longer attracts the same calibre of staff. The letter also noted Battistelli’s continuing disregard for staff rights. “And all the time, the members of the Office’s only supervisory body watch it happen.”
“I believe the situation is now so bad and dangerous at the EPO that it is time that public, patent attorneys, economists and company bosses assemble and act together,” one staff member wrote in anonymous comments published on 3 July. “Make a petition, use your professional or private network if you know politicians, journalists, economist, write to ministers or representatives. We need to inform them that the whole European Patent System is at risk.”
There are also lots of lies and whitewashing from EPO spokespeople in this article (we rebutted these talking points in the past).
In relation to the boards’ planned ‘exile’, which we wrote about this morning, one person recalls old problems and says: “Another badly prepared project at the EPO, very common nowadays” (more so than ever before, by far). With context:
Thanks to Leidschendam for the link to the EPO building that was intended at the time. I find the design far more original that than of the future new Main :
http://www.epo.org/about-us/office/building.html
The rumor concerning the non-constructed building in Leidschendam was that after buying the land, it turned out that the land was not suitable for supporting a big building and the EPO had to sell it for other purposes (such as for houses, which are supposedly lighter than an office building), making a huge loss. Another badly prepared project at the EPO, very common nowadays – just check out what is coming with Early certainty (for examination and opposition)
“Never mind that in other posts the investigation units was found bugging public computers and fabricating facts,” said another person, alluding to Battistelli’s sheer arrogance and his attack on the course of justice:
I find the discussion about the independence of the boards somewhat strange. Haven’t you read the title of the post and the linked documents? Battistelli opinion on the boards is quite clear: they are here to directly follow the conclusions of the investigation unit. Never mind that in other posts the investigation units was found bugging public computers and fabricating facts. The boards work is to do as Battistelli says.
I heard Battistelli privately say a year ago that since he is paying the salary of the boards, he should get what he paid for. I think this is the idea behind the new fee structure: if the boards want to be independent, they should self finance.
In private Battistelli is a relatively simple man: he pays, he wants obedience. The real problem here is that the Council agreed. They did not distanciate from the letter, they did not even raise the point in the last session.
At the EPO, says another person sarcastically:
I fail to see the problem with the Council.
The Council has learned the virtue of OBEDIENCE.
The Council delegations comply with Simon Cameron’s definition of an “honest politician” (“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”)
The real problem seems to be the pig-headed stubborness of the Boards of Appeal which have yet to learn this lesson.
More on the same topic:
Question: other than a resolution at an AC meeting, is there a mechanism by which the President of the EPO can be censored (or even dismissed / have his immunity lifted)?
If the answer to this is no, then can BB rest assured that, so long as he is able to control the agenda for each and every AC meeting, there will always be sufficient (and lengthy) distractions that will prevent the AC from ever reaching a decision that is adverse to him?
If this is the case, then the members of the AC who are at all concerned about the serious damage that is being done by BB to the reputation of the EPO ought to figure out a way of changing the way that the game is played at AC meetings.
What is gratifying to see is that more and more people now recognise and speak about the risk of the EPO alienating talented staff, reducing patent quality, and letting a nutcase like Battistelli run the show. The sooner he is removed from Office (along with his cronies), the better chance of a quicker recovery the Office will have. Right now it’s just a total mess and it harms Europe as a whole. Patent examiners know this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When loyalty (to one’s powerful buddies) trumps logic and faithfulness to one’s country
EPLIT: All about money. Everyone’s money in their pockets.
Summary: EPLIT, the European Patent Litigators Association, wants a litigation-leaning (trigger-happy) UPC policy in spite of a referendum which puts that on hold if not kills it altogether
LAST month we wrote about Lucy Neville-Rolfe's remarks about the UPC. She doesn’t seem to care what the British public wants. She actively works for the interests of the microcosm she associates with. Some call her “Baroness” and given the “Robber Baron” concept, this might be an apt title.
Patent lawyers are, in very general teams, making money from patent wars that target not other patent lawyers but producing companies, i.e. scientists and producers, who then require patent lawyers to “defend” them. Patent lawyers have no personal products/services/agenda at stake; to them it’s like selling weapons to be funneled into a war in which they don’t participate (as soldiers).
Shelston IP, an Australian law firm whose staff acts like software patents lobbyists these days [1, 2], wrote about the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) which we mentioned here before in relation to Australia, Colombia (with the EPO) and in past years in relation to the US/USPTO [1, 2, 3]. What’s not to like when there’s “prosecution” at stake? This is, in essence, what the UPC is about. The C stands for “Court” because it’s presumed that litigation is both desirable and inevitable. That’s an expensive ‘product’ which patent lawyers ‘sell’, so they want more of it.
Now that UPC is on the rocks, as even some UPC proponents openly admit, there are efforts to work around the situation (we covered some before and showed Battistelli's personal role in them). Here is the latest:
A couple of weeks ago the IPKat published a paper from Prof. Dr. Winfried Tilmann of Hogan Lovells outlining a mechanism by which a post-Brexit UK might still participate in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. Other minds have also been addressing this issue, and so the IPKat is again delighted to publish this piece, describing a quite different approach, received from Univ.-Prof. Dr. Thomas Jaeger, LL.M. of Universität Wien (that is University of Vienna to our anglophone readers).
The Brexit vote of June 23rd sent shockwaves throughout both the EU and the UK. Some take the vote as proof of Charles de Gaulle’s age-old observation, that Britain simply does not fit into the EU: “[L’Angleterre] a dans tout son travail des habitudes et des traditions très marquées, très originales. Bref, la nature, la structure qui sont propres à l’Angleterre diffèrent profondément de celle des continentaux.” Others see it as the death knell to the EU and / or the UK as we know them.
Whatever the point of view, one thing is for sure: should Britain overcome its abrupt total loss of political leadership and should someone emerge eventually who is willing to formally notify the European Council of the intention to leave subsequent to Art. 50 (2) TEU, that would be the end of the Unitary Patent Package as originally intended.
Some of the interesting bits emanate from the comments. One person wrote that: “Additionally, a new UP and UPC package guaranteeing that English is the only “true text” for Spain, could also bring the language-obsessed Spaniards onboard. It would still not be fully satisfactory for them, but at least for Spain, English would be established as the only legal language for these patents.”
No, this is totally nonsense. Without English, UPC would be obsolete as many of the stakeholders would be from English-speaking countries or countries that don’t understand French and German (barely anyone there speaks those languages). Even the patent trolls which UPC threatens to invite require English. So who would English be for? The Irish? With Brexit, the conflict over languages would only deepen and threaten to drive Italy back to the opposition. Spain would then have rivalry with Italy and the whole appeal of the UPC decline considerably.
“Today,” wrote another person, “the European Patent Litigators Association (EPLIT) has urged UK government to ratify UPC Agreement as soon as possible” (direct link).
So the conspiracy of patent lawyers, or “Team UPC” as we habitually call it, is lobbying our government on UPC and guess who leads the charge? “EPLIT sent a letter to The Rt. Hon Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe,” it says, “Minister for Intellectual Property. With this letter EPLIT urges the UK government to ratify the UPC Agreement as soon as possible.”
Will Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe, the lapdog of Battistelli and his thugs, lead the charge for UPC in the UK or will she choose to respect the rule of law, common sense, and will of the people (not patent lawyers)?
The remainder of the comments seem to have come from UPC proponents. One of them says:
Sorry for the UK.
No need to be sorry. The UK doesn’t need UPC. It was never a gift at all.
Anyway, somthing will have to be done for the UPC agreement as the UK is mentionned in the annex. Removing the London section will be a renegociation (without UK) that will be difficult because of the NL and IT who may want a section.
This would take years.
Watch this optimism which wrongly assumes that Theresa May, who hasn’t a clue about patents (I spoke to her in length in the past and she doesn’t even get technology), will rush to deal with the UPC as though it’s the most urgent matter:
The U.K. will have a new PM by Wednesday apparently and she has stated that Brexit is Brexit. Hard to imagine that the UPC can sneak through parliament unnoticed (with summer recess almost upon us) and party conference time in September breaking it up further. Soon would only be possible in October I’d guess and by then Brexit may be up and running. Hard ball from some EU states may even risk the UK not being accepted for signing? Hasn’t Cameron already been excluded from some EU summit sessions? I wouldn’t be surprised if some states (looking at a court) might challenge it.
The author’s suggestion that minor reform may be the best (only?) option seems pragmatic and realistic.
There is no minor reform which is “pragmatic and realistic” if the UK (and thus London) leaves the EU. This is a patent lawyer’s fantasy. Watch others who keep trying to bypass the law and push for UPC even before Brexit, as if the UPC is somehow beneficial to the UK (it’s not, it’s just for some lawyers in London and their huge clients from other countries). To quote the latest comment:
A minor reform of the UPCA seems indeed the best option to deal with a Brexit. However, it would serve all parties if the reform (and the negotiations that go with it) would take place after the system has been set in motion. This means, that it would also be beneficial for the UK to ratify now and to negotiate a UPC-exit alongside the Brexit negotiations.
The advantages for all parties are:
– the system can already start as planned (spring 2017)
– the system can gain momentum in the coming years, while the UK is still in the EU (the new UK prime minister has indicated that Brexit should be done carefully, and thus slowly).
– the UK will have the advantage of the London seat of the UPC
– the UK will have the advantage that once the system is started they will be considered indispensible for the continuation of the system (they are already deemed to be indispensible before the system has started), which will improve their negotiation position.
This thus could be considered a win-win situation. Accordingly, I second the request of EPLIT to the UK government to ratify the UPCA.
Wanna bet this supporter of EPLIT is not actually a patent applicant/assignee but someone who profits from patent mess? UPC has been all about enabling a hijack of the whole system to the detriment of European SMEs (while hijacking their voices)? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
French/Corsican Abuse or Just Political Wars?
Summary: Battistelli’s shameful behaviour is met with medals rather than scorn from Jean-Yves Le Déaut, demonstrating that in some people’s view he is doing a fine job, not embarrassing France with a culture of nepotism, abuse of justice, extravagant self-serving ceremonies, and union-busting zeal
THIS morning we wrote about political aspects of the Battistelli regime inside the EPO (broader than just Battistelli himself) and earlier today somebody posted — in an anonymous comment — Friday’s message from Raimund Lutz, part of Team Battistelli (big internal news items tend to come out late on Friday when the European media goes to sleep).
Here it is with some contextual remarks:
We’re doomed.
I’m pessimistic about the EPO, the member states, and “Europe”.
EPO welcomes OPECST Delegation
High-level French parliamentary commission visits the EPO
A delegation of France’s Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment (OPECST), which is composed of members of both the French Senate and National Assembly, visited the EPO yesterday [7 July] for an exchange of views on the latest developments in the field of biotechnology inventions. The French delegation was headed by OPECST President, Jean-Yves Le Déaut, member of the French National Assembly, and also included representatives of the French Embassy. The task of the OPECST is to support the French parliament in gaining greater insight into technological and scientific matters on which it decides.
In his opening address, President Benoît Battistelli underlined that the EPO was closely following national debates on biotechnology in the member states. He welcomed the opportunity for an open dialogue with the OPECST on this topic.
The meeting was held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere, and focused on various points of common interest, including recent developments in the European patent system. It also offered the opportunity for an exchange between the OPECST delegation and a team of EPO patent practitioners and legal and economic experts. With biotechnology specialists from DG 1 and DG 5 and the EPO’s Chief Economist present, the EPO gave a number of presentations on biotechnology patents, including on the economic aspects, and the legal framework governing the patentability of biotechnology inventions, with a special focus on the law and practice concerning inventions related to plants and human gene sequences.
On the occasion of the visit, the EPO President was given a “Médaille de l’Assemblée Nationale” by Jean-Yves Le Déaut in his capacity as member of the National Assembly.
08.07 16 | Author Raimund Lutz – Vice-President DG 5 | Target group: DG4, DG5, President-DG0, DG1, DG2, DG3
Last month when we wrote about Battistelli's very expensive lobbying event we took note of the Commission’s role in it (the Commission’s so-called science chief) — a subject which Marc Tarabella has begun talking about for S&D. Another commenter explained:
The medal is not an award or decoration:
La Médaille de l’Assemblée nationale est une médaille remise à chaque député français en début de législature
It’s something that also Le Pen father would have received every year.
The following comment cites Corsican relations:
According to your own link, this medal (in fact, a replica of it) can also be a “vulgaire breloque” handed out at the discretion of individual MPs:
« Certains députés offrent à des individus qu’ils souhaitent mettre à l’honneur, une médaille similaire éditée par la boutique de l’Assemblée nationale ; il s’agit d’un cadeau et non d’une décoration officielle. »
The other Corsican famously declared: « C’est avec des hochets que l’on mène les hommes. » But who is led by whom here?
Benoît B. doesn’t seem to have the decoration Bonap was referring to, however a Charles-Robert Battistelli was awarded one in 1930.
The article cited in this case, regarding the Corsican connection, was translated for us some months ago and maybe now is a good time to post what we have of it (this is not complete).
Some time back in December, an article was published which chronicled the EPO situation from a rather unique angle. The article was written in French. One of our readers, who is able to comprehend French, gradually translated this rather long text. In an effort to maximise the amount of information that is available to the public, we decided to publish this text in English but didn’t quite have the necessary context. “The Agoravox piece is written in a rather elaborate language,” this reader told us, “and a good English translation is difficult, especially in view of the many historical and literary references. For example, “sections spéciales” is a reference to 1975 film about official repression forces under the pro-Nazi Vichy regime. From its polemical tone I would be a bit surprised to see it featured on the SUEPO web site, or let alone see a translation.”
Here it is in English:
What does the social conflict at the European Patent Office stand for?
by Appollo
Friday 18 December 2015
The social conflict at the European Patent Office (EPO) which has been ongoing for more than two years is now taking extreme proportions. The following address written by an acquaintance who is well in the know aims to present the reasons of the “forceps delivery” of a new “unitedstateseuropeanised” institution in charge of intellectual property, within the framework of the transatlantic partnership (TTIP/TAFTA). The author claims and shows that one should see in the brutal abolition of the rights of the staff, which is very autocratically conducted by its president (Mr. B. Battistelli), a preview of what awaits us all with the transatlantic partnership. The crisis of the European Patent Office is thus neither a categorical or corporatist conflict: it is in fact a laboratory of the subordination to US social standards — this is the tragic reality hidden by the sacharine expression “social standards harmonisation” — of the peoples of Europe who are destined to be dissolved into the United States. There are no monetary claims at stake in this conflict, but an opposition to the perpetually increasing targets given to each EPO staff member, ad absurdo. This situation is well known in various business (France-Telecom, etc.), but with respect to the EPO, through its extra-territorial status, there are no rights: no right to work, no criminal law, no civil law, just the extremist will of its president and his confederates, who created their own police forces operating in “special sections” and hired a anglo-US security company for its less palatable tasks. Decisions — whether individual or collective in scope — can only be contested before management, which is de facto both judge and party. Appeals are filed at the International Labour Organisation, which hasn’t been conceived for that and is overwhelmed: no case is anymore likely to be completed in reasonable time. It is thus a lawless structure, a “no-law-land”. The founding fathers evidently did not foresee the case where a president together with a few confederates would overtake it… without oversight. We will note that it went without saying that the attack began with the suppression of the right to strike.
Just one more word of presentation on the European Patent Office (EPO): founded in 1979, this executive organ of the European Patent Organisation is in fact an organ of European cooperation implementing the European Patent Convention (EPO). It is independent of the European Union (EU) and essentially granted up to now national patents in place of national authorities in charge of intellectual property in the 38 member states (e.g. the French INPI) –- to which must be added two states for which an extension is possible -– and not of an “European” patent, which should shortly be implemented. An invention patent is an intellectual property title which confers its holder (usually a corporation) the right to prohibit others to use the invention for a limited time (up to 20 years) and on a given territory (e.g. a country) in exchange of the divulgation to the public of the said invention.
Here is now the address.
* * *
Dear EPO colleagues: I am only now able to address you, as I have only gathered in the last few days the strength to write and describe the situation of the Office. Let it be clear that even though I write here as a Frenchman, I am addressing all of you.
Mr. Battistelli is French, of course, but… well, no: he is Corsican. This magnificent little island with a volcanic temperament, where the red cliffs plunge from their tree garnished crests into the deep blue of the Mediterranean, gave to France a man who was in his day execrated by which almost all Europe. Corsica landed under French rule in 1768, just in time for one to believe that Napoleon was a Frenchman — since it is him we are referring to. His uncommon military genius wasn’t French: if one just reflects about this, it will be obvious that France has demonstrated her total incompetence in that area for at least six hundred and fifty years. His project of fusing Europe into a new Carlovingian Empire wasn’t French either. Before him, the destiny of France had been to fight against empires: since at least the battle of Bouvines, she fought for her survival, for her independence, fatally smothered as she was by the Plantagenet Empire allied with the Holy Roman Empire, and then against the Spanish Empire allied with the Habsburg Empire. Let’s remember that she bears the name of the land of free men, the name of the free — at this is undoubtedly the reason why she is as frequently as unconsciously named the “country of liberty”. The Napoleonic way of governing wasn’t any more French: if he inaugurated in France the ascent to power of a soldier through a coup d’état, his authoritarianism was incomparably more severe than that of our kings of divine right; including Louis XIV who did non subdue his people, but its nobility. The French, in their great collective and political wisdom, only gave him victory for the wars which Europe waged on revolutionary France; they withheld them from him for the wars demanded by his ambition, thus sealing his fate, first in the Spanish sierras, and then in the Russian steppe. He ruled as an autocrat, which not even our kings dared to do. He mistreated his ministers and made corrupt puppets out of the members of the assemblies by buying them with money. He governed conquered Europe through the members of his family whom he named king and queen of Naples, Westphalia, Holland and Spain. He made himself king of Italy. His family came to be called the “tribe”: thanks to him, nepotism became a system of government.
He was initiated as a freemason, but refrained from associating his brothers to his dreadful end.
There is a lot more to it, but we await the reminder of the original’s translation. This proceeds to discussion ENA and other aspects of Battistelli’s background.
Perhaps it will be easier to comprehend Battistelli’s immunity (like Clinton’s) if political aspects are better understood. Battistelli serves some powerful people’s agenda and has apparently been doing so for quite some time (prior to EPO). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 3:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Reality distortion field (RDF) is a term coined by Bud Tribble at Apple Computer in 1981…” –Wikipedia
Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P. with a slant
Summary: Another new example of software patents advocacy from IAM, with help from Microsoft’s people (or ‘former’ people)
NOT only patent trolls, the PR firm of the EPO and various patent law firms send money IAM’s way. Joff Wild has quite a few hands feeding him and these tend to be ardent advocates of patent wars (they profit from wars). It’s not really a news site, even if Google News recognises it as such. It is agenda. Sometimes it’s marketing.
Earlier today IAM gave readers the impression of software patents resurgence. As we have been showing here for a number of months, this could not be further from the truth and this claim comes (or sourced) from Microsoft’s former Patent Counsel, Bart Eppenauer. Joff Wild previously gave Bart Eppenauer a voice/platform in his Microsoft-powered site for similar reasons. It is not too shocking to find the site once again being composed, by proxy, by Microsoft folks in order to promote software patents, like those which Microsoft uses to continue its war on GNU/Linux, Android, ChromeOS, and Free software in general.
“It is not too shocking to find the site once again being composed, by proxy, by Microsoft folks in order to promote software patents, like those which Microsoft uses to continue its war on GNU/Linux, Android, ChromeOS, and Free software in general.”Wild wants us to believe that just two decisions (among many thousands) at CAFC (a corruptible court by the way), one of which involved Microsoft directly, somehow mean “eligibility nightmare the US software and biotech industries have been going through may – just may – be coming to an end.”
Well, the very opposite is true as SCOTUS refuses to revisit anything that pertains to Alice and litigation fell sharply. Lies by omission, selection, cherry-picking or just wishful thinking? Microsoft, a lobbyist for software patents, is hardly a reliable or objective source regarding software patents (especially in cases that involve Microsoft) and Joff Wild is experienced enough to know this. Does IAM even make an attempt to hide its agenda (and Microsoft’s) any longer? It has been getting pretty shallow.
This is what we often allude to as the problem of patent lawyers dominating if not abducting the media and thus controlling (or distorting) the message. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
But those capable of firing Battistelli continue to sit on his lap, enabling top-down imposition of neo-liberal policies
Summary: The EPO’s social affairs have become so bad that they are now comparable to the widely-disgraced Nicolas Sarkozy regime (‘union’) with the Bygmalion affair
THE EPO has a serious credibility problem. It’s the fault of Battistelli. Some people tell us that interest in the EPO’s services has been lost somewhat under Battistelli, even though it may take a year or two for people to actually see this (as there is a certain lag in the inflow/pipeline). The EPO’s forums have eerily quiet (enough for the EPO to publicly encourage people to participate in this dead zone) and the EPO repeated its lies a few days ago (lies about the boards of appeal losing their sovereignty by having a new manager appointed by Battistelli). Also noteworthy is this statement about Lithuania. Remember how Lithuania and Battistelli signed a deal with particularly curious timing and circumstances. Whatever is going on at the EPO right now (at the top-level management), it’s usually rather awkward. Not only do they lie to staff and to journalists; they also mislead some people in management, maybe even themselves. It’s embarrassing. It makes Europe look bad and it makes France look even worse. At the end of last month Renaud Lecadre wrote an article in the French media, accusing Battistelli of attacking EPO union/s. Here is SUEPO’s relatively new translation of the article with highlights on important bits:
Report
French Boss sows the seeds of anti-unionism at the European Patent Office
By Renaud Lecadre — 28 June 2016, 17:01
Benoît Battistelli, in March. Photo Emmanuel Dunand. AFP
Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office, appointed to the job under Nicolas Sarkozy, is coming under fire for staff union discrimination. His fate will be in the spotlight on Wednesday and Thursday when the Administrative Council meets.
At the European Patent Office, a French boss is sowing the seeds of anti-unionism
The only continental administrative body presided over by France, the European Patent Office (EPO) is in utter upheaval. The President, Benoît Battistelli, propelled into power in 2010 by Nicolas Sarkozy, is accused of drifting into dictatorship, discrimination against staff unions, and of denying the least legal challenge to his own little empire. A case of the leadership going off course, which will be coming under scrutiny on Wednesday by the Administrative Council of the EPO, which has its headquarters in Munich but also with a branch office in The Hague. And the risk is that the French presence among the international institutions will be eroded just that little bit more.
So what is Battistelli’s management accused of? In particular, at least three suicides of staff members during his tenure, one actually at the workplace. “Every case is a tragedy, and no-one understood the reason for their action,” was Battistelli’s view of the deaths, when Libération met him last month in Paris. Not surprisingly, the in-house unions have a different take on events: “All he sees are people who he thinks are incompetent and incapable, but no-one can be right all of the time against what everyone else thinks. France’s entire reputation among the international institutions is at stake,” says one French member of SUEPO (Staff Union of the European Patent Office).
Bringing the unions to heel
The EPO employs 6,700 international personnel, on a world market for patents which is fiercely competitive. Inventors (or would-be inventors) are at liberty to opt for any national,
European or Asian office, with a view to getting their inventions patented. “Competition is hard, and the difference in costs between the different offices is considerable,” says Battistelli in justification for his stance. “At the EPO we need to work more and work better. And that’s the programme for which I was appointed”. Liberal be damned; whatever executive role he may playing, the main aim seems to be to bring the unions to heel.
SUEPO won 70% of the votes in the staff elections. Battistelli suppressed his in-house union, banning them from using the internal messaging service, and initiated disciplinary procedures against seven of its executives, before attempting to set up a puppet union of his own – which polled 1% of the votes. “I have been an enthusiast of dialogue with the unions for a long time,” says Battistelli in his defence. Then he ushers in another initiative: Submitting the right to strike to an internal referendum under his tutelage, and with identification of the voters. Unfortunately, despite this close monitoring, in April 90% of the staff (of a 55% turnout) voted in favour of the latest strike.
When you’re up against the boss, where do you turn? SUEPO went to the Court of Appeal in The Hague, which in February 2015, ordered the EPO “to allow free access, and not to block
emails deriving from suepo.org”, ruling that the protection of union rights was “manifestly deficient”. Battistelli viewed this as a crime of lèse-majesté, an infringement on his executive authority, and took refuge behind the judicial immunity of his international institution. For very good reasons, namely: “The principle of immunity is not to protect people in a privileged position, but to protect against interference by outside nations.” SUEPO immediately interpreted this as: “A black pit for internal democracy, and for union and legal rights.” The EPO boss does not refute this, but refers in turn to “serial litigants”, “inadmissible” in his eyes, then stands his ground on his own rights as an executive: “There are no class actions when it comes to social affairs”…
Sabotaging the bicycle
Up to now, France has backed the French president of a continental institution. Last April, Emmanuel Macron received Benoît Battistelli at Bercy. “You have my support in all you are doing to adapt and modernise the EPO,” the first president is supposed to have said, at least according to the second one. And what about everyone else? Another demonstration by the staff of the EPO, at Munich or The Hague, without stopping in front of the French consulate… “Bercy is trying to understand his psychopathology,” is how one French union member tried to come to terms with events. “France must take on its responsibilities,” says William Bourdon, advocate for SUEPO. “It is regrettable and dangerous that a European institution which is supposed to be setting an example is so little under its control.”
On Wednesday, at the meeting of the Administrative Council, the EPO is going to be taking another look at its resolution adopted last March, when a previous Council expressed its “deep concerns about the social turmoil inside the Office”, then noted that “the internal sanctions and disciplinary procedures have been widely challenged by public opinion”. It may well be time to turn words into deeds. The President, reinstated last year for a three-year mandate, maintains that he is a victim of a “press campaign”, and will defend his stance to the death. His latest initiative: A press release complaining about the sabotage of his bicycle in the EPO car park, with the brake cables cut, a “deliberate act of vandalism personally aimed at the President”. Since then he has assigned himself six bodyguards.
Renaud Lecadre
The above correctly notes, as we pointed out before, that this whole affair and all these scandals are not at all beneficial to France (just to a few French individuals whom Battistelli gave high salary jobs). This fosters/creates a negative impression and French politicians are rightly concerned about this. It could become another Bygmalion affair. As for the bicycle angle, it has become somewhat of an internal joke. The above article focuses on Battistelli’s attacks on unions but not on his attacks on judges (those who assess and reassess patents, as this new example serves to remind us. There is an attack not only on EPO (Office) staff but also the Administration/Organisation (no wonder there are suicides, as noted above). Even stakeholders/applicants are negatively affected.
“Inventors deserve recognition for their incredible contributions to making our lives better,” the EPO wrote some days ago. “Help us do this,” they added, basically appealing for help with Battistelli's next PR and lobbying event. What they ought to say is that “Battistelli deserves recognition for his incredible attacks on staff, making our lives miserable.” That would at least be honest. On Friday also they did this kind of thing with a “startups” slant, pretending that the EPO under Battistelli cares about SMEs while effectively pushing them to the back of the line. Classic neo-liberalism!
As a reminder of Battistelli’s attacks on the boards, consider Sonja Behrens’s report with highlights on important bits. SUEPO provided the following English translation in its public site:
EPO Dispute: Judges feel threatened by Office Boss Battistelli
The decision taken last week by the Enlarged Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to stop disciplinary proceedings against a suspended judge is, in a sense, a
settling of scores with Office President Benoît Battistelli. Specifically, present members of the EPO Boards of Appeal also feel themselves threatened, according to the document. Under these circumstances, their independence as judges is no longer guaranteed.
For many months a bitter dispute has been ongoing within the Office, with its 7,000 strong workforce, between the management and a large number of the employees and the staff unions. This has been prompted by the efforts at reform initiated by Battistelli – and the methods with which he intends to put his plans into practice. Employees complain of interference with their basic rights, including by way of internal investigation procedures.
The dispute over the suspension from office of a judge is the high point of the conflict – so far. The proceedings started to become noticeably unusual when the Enlarged Boards of Appeal arranged for a public hearing in the suspension proceedings, so as to ensure transparency in what was already a contentious issue, whereupon Office President Battistelli
intervened in writing. He demanded a hearing behind closed doors – and that, as the judges saw it, was impermissible meddling in the proceedings.
Judges see a “general, abstract threat”
According to the decision which JUVE has in its possession, Battistelli had argued that a public hearing was unlawful. The personal presence of witnesses from the Office was something he considered unnecessary for the proceedings, and nor would he authorise it. Moreover, the Enlarged Boards of Appeal were apparently not even allowed to investigate the matter again. And on top of all this, he made it clear that he would do everything in his power to ensure that business at the Munich patent authority could in future be run in an orderly fashion.
The court viewed this as a “general, abstract threat”, which affected every member of the Enlarged Boards. The intervention by the President, and thereby the Executive, was impermissible in terms of legal procedure, according to the judges, because Battistelli is not a party to these proceedings. The judges see their independence, which is firmly anchored in Article 23 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), as being fundamentally undermined.
Off-centre from the outset
Last autumn the Administrative Council of the EPO, on which representatives of the 38 Member States sit, called upon the Enlarged Boards of Appeal responsible to recommend dismissal in the disciplinary proceedings against the suspended judge. In so doing, the Administrative Council were already bowing to pressure from the President, who at the end of 2014 had imposed a ban on the former member of the Board of Appeal from entering the premises, and had him escorted out of the Office building in Munich. Over the following months, despite the uproar, the Administrative Council did not distance itself from the proceedings which had been initiated, nor from Battistelli’s most recent letter.
The suspended judge maintains, among other things, that the investigations against him incurred formal procedural errors – and for this reason alone the presumption of innocence could no longer be entertained in this respect, becausethe Office itself had broken the confidentiality of the proceedings.
In view of the circumstances, last week the Board of Appeal refused to dismiss the accused judge. The proceedings were terminated without a substantive decision, and, specifically on the significant grounds that, in view of the threats from the Office management, an independent ruling was impossible. As well as that, the Board recommended that the suspended judge be reimbursed for all the costs of the proceedings. They did not, however, regard themselves as empowered to order the compensation. The judges also accorded with the defendant’s wishes that the decision be made public.
Whether Battistelli, in the top position at the Office, continues to enjoy the support of the Administrative Council will become clear soon enough: At the end of June the Council is actually scheduled to rule on the reform of court procedures within the EPO. (Sonja Behrens)
The above seems reasonably accurate (we cannot see anything which is clearly wrong) and it alludes to Battistelli's media attacks on the accused judge (violating the EPO’s already-low standards for internal investigations). How can anyone take Battistelli seriously when he keeps breaking his own rules? Now he attacks even justice itself. “I fail to see how it increases or enhances the autonomy of the Boards of Appeal,” one person wrote about Battistelli’s coup last week. Here is the comment in full:
The point as I see it is the following:
Under the “old” arrangements, the judicial bodies (Boards of Appeal and EBA) adopted their own Rules of Procedure which were then subject to approval by the appointing authority (the AC which is the EPO “legislative”).
Under the new arrangements the Rules of Procedure for the judicial bodies will now be adopted by a sub-committee of the AC (the BOAC) and presumably then approved by the AC itself pursuant to Article 23 (4) EPC (which has not been changed).
In other words: the Rules of Procedure will now be adopted by a sub-committee of the “legislative” and approved by the “legislative” itself.
I cannot see this as being anything other than a transfer of competence from the judicial organs (who previously disposed of the competence to adopt the RoP) to the legislative (which now disposes of both the competences to “adopt” and to “approve” the RoP).
Undoubtedly this is all just one small detail in the grand scheme of things.
But I fail to see how it increases or enhances the autonomy of the Boards of Appeal or even the “preception of independence” so close to the heart of the EPO President.
To me it seems to be a very clear erosion of autonomy.
But maybe I am missing something?
“BB’s [Battistelli's] original proposal (that he should have sole responsibility) was absolutely wrong,” wrote another person, in a comment which some interpreted as pro-Battistelli views:
Back to Basics
I think what you are missing is that in most jurisdictions, court rules of procedure are produced on a collaborative basis. Yes, the judges themselves should be at the heart of it, but the fairest and most efficient outcome is achieved when other points of view are also taken into account. This is how it works in the UK and UPC, for example.
The requirement for separation of the judiciary from the executive arm of the EPO means that BB’s original proposal (that he should have sole responsibility) was absolutely wrong.
But the current situation where the Boards have sole responsibility and don’t have to listen to other views is not necessarily the best either.
Sure, you can argue about whether the proposed solution achieves the best balance. But it is more balanced than either of the above alternatives. And it does mean that the Boards themselves will still be drafting the rules, even though others will also have a say which they don’t at the moment.
At least one person thought that the above may have been “the President’s sock-puppet”:
Looks like the President’s sock-puppets are busy today.
Under the current arrangement, the Boards don’t have the sole responsibility.
There is a classical “separation of powers” arrangement whereby the Boards “propose” (i.e. adopt the rules) and the AC “disposes” (i.e. approves).
Under that arrangement the AC can exercise a certain amount of control over any proposed changes to the RoP by withholding its approval.
Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.
As Back to Basics said that seems like a transfer of competence from the Board to the AC. All of the power is now concentrated in the hands of the legislature (AC).
In a situation where the legislature is subservient to the executive (President) that is worrying.
And as for “others” having a say, pray tell how is that supposed to come about?
Not everyone agreed with this interpretation. One later response to it said:
Looks like the President’s sock-puppets are busy today.
The President employs sock puppets who describe his proposal as “absolutely wrong”?
Get real.
Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.
Or instead of making things up, we could actually read CA/43/16 Rev.1. The RoP will not be proposed by the AC. Nor by the BOAC.
They will be proposed by the President of the Boards of Appeal, advised by the Presidium. See new Rules 12c(2) and 12b(3)(c) EPC.
And as for “others” having a say, pray tell how is that supposed to come about?
See the Regulations of the Boards of Appeal Committee, Article 4(2)(i):
Quote:
[the BOAC shall] “carry out, where necessary, user consultations on matters of direct concern to users,such as proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.”
Comments thereafter focused on the lack of consultation and oversight:
Regarding the others, did the document not deal with this by saying that the IP world would not be represented as only some areas of the BoAC’ s remit would concern them? Will need to check the wording but I thought it was rather curt and direct.
In fact in the explanatory notes to CA 43/16, it is stated:
” 20. In the user consultation carried out by the Office, users said they would like to be
granted observer status on the BOAC. Given that the BOAC will deal with a variety
of issues which are of no direct interest to users, this is not deemed appropriate.
However, where necessary, the BOAC should carry out broad user consultations,
in particular on proposals to amend the RPBA/RPEBA.”
What you are missing, Back to basics, is a picture of the President and the National delegations on holidays on a beach – possibly separatedly – sipping cocktails and yawning at your legal analysis that will change absolutely nothing.
Can you see it now? Yes? I thought so.
Sorry to be blunt – nonetheless, you may have a point in your analysis.
“To render them independent,” noted another person, “the Boards will be moved outside Munich in the middle of nowhere. The rest are just details that do not affect independence.”
This led to a long discussion about the ‘exile’ of the boards (to a yet-unspecified location):
To render them independent the Boards will be moved outside Munich in the middle of nowhere.
The same sick idea crossed my mind too…
Excerpt from the EPO Codex, Circular 115 of 10 March 1983, “Guidelines regarding travel in the interest of the service at the place of employment”:
(1) The place of employment shall be regarded as:
[...]
b) the districts listed in the annex for employees in post in [...] Munich.
[...]
The Munich area covers:
Aschheim
Baierbrunn
Brunnthal
Buchendorf
Dachau
Dingharting
Dornach
Eching
Eichenau
Feldgeding
Feldkirchen
Garching
Gauting
Germering
Gilching
Grasbrunn
Gräfelfing
Gröbenzell
Grünwald
Günding
Haar
Harthausen
Heimstetten
Hofolding
Hohenbrunn
Höhenkirchen
Ismaning
Karlsfeld
Kirchheim
Krailling
Lenstetten
München
Neubiberg
Neukeferloh
Neuried
Oberbiberg
Oberhaching
Oberschleißheim
Olching
Ottobrunn
Parsdorf
Percha
Planegg
Pleining
Puchheim
Pullach
Putzbrunn
Pöring/Poing
Sauerlach
Schäftlarn
Siegertsbrunn
Starnberg
Straßlach
Taufkirchen
Unterföhring
Unterhaching
Unterpfaffenhofen
Unterschleißheim
Vaterstetten
Wangen
Zorneding
Is this list applicable to the definition of “Munich” for, say, the purpose of Art. 6(1) EPC?
And that list can be modified by the President, as attests footnote 2:
Modified by decision of the President on recommendation of the GAC.
Technically he could define Kreuzberg, Wedding or Marzahn or even Bremerhaven, Frankfurt/Oder or Gelsenkirchen as being part of the definition of “Munich”, and no one would be able to do anything about it.
Another bit of input regarding the location, as per the EPC:
Excerpt from the EPO Codex …
I don’t think it is necessary to look that far.
The EPO branch at The Hague (Art. 6(2) EPC) is located in Rijswijk. Rijswijk is a fully independent municipality whose only connection to The Hague is that it borders The Hague.
According to Visser, The Annotated EPC:
- When the EPC 1973 was concluded, the offices of the IIB (predecessor of the EPO branch at The Hague) were located in The Hague. When the EPO actually started, the IIB had moved to Rijswijk. There has never been an EPO office in The Hague.
- During the revision of the EPC in 2000 it was “decided (I’m not sure in what sense… probably simply agreed among the delegations) that “any geographical location in the EPC should be interpreted broadly, e.g. The Hague should mean the province of South Holland and Munich the country of Bavaria. Any geographical allocation would at some point restrict the reallocation of offices.”
I guess one should be able to find this passage somewhere in the minutes of the 2000 diplomatic conference.
So… Munich = Munich area? Why think so small?
So DG3 could be relegated to the fortress in Landsberg or some old pigsty around Augsburg without further ado. Hof might be remote enough for the President’s taste. That’s a not nice thought to start the week-end with…
I was well aware of the very long-standing resistance of the borough of Rijswijk against its annexation by The Hague, but never really made the connection with the EPO. The ugly dovecote in Rijswijk was however inherited from the IIB.
Weren’t there plans to create a new site in ZH about 20 years ago? The name “Voorburg” resonates in my brain cells, but I’m not sure that was the place. This suburb is currently amalgamated with Leidschendam. I heard it “sous le manteau” that a plot of land had even been acquired, to be later cast off, yielding a beautiful profit set in bright red numbers. Anyway, it ain’t the kind of story you would normally read in the Gazette.
I checked Art. 6 in my own copy of Visser, the French patent office is characterised as “disorganised”. I don’t think this is the proper assessment, but then my edition dates back from when BB was still the head honcho there. 
The upheaval around the so-called “Areas of Competence” clearly was just starters.
“IIRC,” one person wrote, “the enlarged Board of Appeals already decided, that The Hague means anywhere in the Netherlands, and Munich is therefore interpreted as anywhere in Bavaria…. Will try to refind that sometime….”
Citing this page, it’s later noted that “[i]t was Leidschendam and if I’m not mistaken the EPO made a loss on the plot of land. An architectural design competition had been held and the project was awarded in 1990 (building to be finished near the end of 1994), but patent filings collapsed so it was all cancelled.
“I believe that the Dutch authorities that bought back the land for a lower price then again made a nice profit by changing the zoning regulations to make it suitable for housing. But I might not have all the details right.”
We recently heard some rumours about missing floors in the new building of the EPO in the Netherlands, but insiders told us that these rumours were false.
Looking at another thread at IP Kat, one person asked: “Why is this blog still silent about the Administrative Council approving the proposed reform last Thursday, with only some relatively minor amendments? This approval is apparently perceived as unbelievable by anybody (except the EPO administration) who dares to express an opinion on the matter.”
Yes, well, there has been little or nothing on the subject, except in anonymous comments from people who are likely insiders. Going back to the original thread, people can see that the President of the EPO is left controlling the other “President” (BOAC) by appointment, which demonstrates how the Administrative Council effectively helped Battistelli destroy the boards’ independence. To quote:
“Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.”
It seems a bit more subtle to me.
Previously, it was the presidium of the boards that drafted the RoP.
Now, it is the president of the boards. The presidium only advises the president of the boards.
So this power has moved from the presidium to the president of the boards.
Here comes the rub: the president of the boards will be hand-picked by the EPO president (sure, a “joint proposal” by the EPO president and the BOAC).
No big deal, because once appointed he’ll be independent? Let’s see…
Will his reappointment after expiry of his 5-year term be essentially automatic? Or will the EPO president have a big say in this?
We’ll know soon enough how reappointment of the president of the boards will be handled.
Whatever happens next at the EPO (the past few days have been disappointingly quiet, even at SUEPO’s Web site), the perception of a Battistelli-led EPO is negative enough to merit immediate change. How will it come about? Perhaps stakeholders will vote with their feet or fees. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in News Roundup at 2:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 9:23 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Continuándo una tradición de secretividad y negociaciónes astutas entre sus beneficiaros prospectivos, la UPC es debatida en Munich por Battistelli y el Equipo UPC (en su mayoríá firmas de leyes de patentes), llegando a nada pero mentiras y no un significativo cubrimiénto de prensa
El pasado mes y a principios de este publicamos casi media docena de artículos acerca del colapso de la UPC despues de Brexit (vean la Wiki de la EPO por detalles). Es un problema para la UPC y este se está convirtiéndo cada vez más aceptado dentro de las firmes de patentes. Por ejemplo, citando el artículo de Henschel el cual menciónamos el otro día, Benjamin Henrion dice [1, 2] que “las leyes de patentes de la UE serán alemanizadas con la ausencia del Reino Unido. “Jueces de la UPC fueron aceptados hasta el 4 de Julio, pero jueces aplicantes del Reino Unido pueden ahora ser excluídos”” (El Equipo UPC hizo publicidad de trabajos que no existían y probablemente nunca existirán, lo que revela un montón del equipo UPC y su falta de ética).
Henrion señaló que “la UPC tiene demasiados problemas.” Aparte del problema de que la UPC es un ataque a la democracia misma, hay problemas técnicos con su aplicación ahora, especialmente debido a Brexit. Esto fue previsto por muchos críticos distintos a Henrion e incluso la EPO lo admitió este último mes. “Brexit amenaza a la inseguridad jurídica, costos más altos para las marcas, dicen los abogados,” de acuerdo con la IP Watch, pero preguntar abogados acerca de los costos es como pedirle a los fabricantes de armas de guerra la paz (este artículo está detrás de un muro de pago por cierto). Hay un par de nuevos artículos sobre el EPO en este momento, pero ambos están en alemán [1, 2] (traducciones serían muy apreciadas) y el segundo es acerca de Brexit. En muchos sentidos, la UPC está muerta, pero Battistelli tratará de salvar a su “bebé”. Las últimas mentiras de la EPO (advertencia: epo.org link, vinculados a la cuenta de Twitter de la EPO) dicen que hay “un fuerte apoyo para el paquete de Patente Unitaria”, sino como Henrion les dijo correctamente “cuando se pregunta a la comunidad de las patentes, eso es como predicar su propia iglesia! “(que sólo han preguntado equipo de la UPC a puerta cerrada)
“Otro problema aparte es que la UPC es un ataque en la democracia misma, hay problemas técnicos con su implementación ahora, expecialmente debido a Brexit.”
La UPC sin duda cuenta con el apoyo de la colusión de auto-servicio que la creó en primer lugar, o al menos la planeó. ¿Por qué es que epo.org básicamente se convirtió en un sitio de la propaganda Battistelli en lugar de algo científico? ¿Qué van a pensar las empresas? A las pequeñas empresas de toda Europa no les gusta la UPC. ¿Le importa a la EPO sobre ellos en absoluto? Sobre la base de este artículo de equipo de la UPC, Margot Fröhlinger dijo que ninguno de los usuarios y empresas disponibles expresó reticencia a continuar con el impulso de la patente unitaria. “Cualquier cosa que ellos decidan lo harán”, por citar directamente “, la UPC seguirá adelante. La línea de base de esta conferencia podría haber sido: donde hay voluntad, hay un camino”.
Pero ¿voluntad de quién? El equipo de la UPC es un grupo de depredadores, que no representan los intereses de Europa. Max Brunner (Ministerio de Justicia – Francia) es citado diciendo: “El proyecto es bueno para los negocios.-leáse grandes corporaciónes non-europeas – Por lo tanto tenemos que continuarlo”.
Pero la “UPC es dañina,” notó Henrion. Las PYMEs en Europa levantaron su voz en contra de ella, habiéndo descubierto sus realidades. El equip UPC está basicamente de nuevo, malrepresentando a Europa y a los negocios Europeos. Glyn Moody dijo que cuando la UPC dice “bueno para los negocios, significa malo para el público aquí: más monopolios, más arreglo de precios” (a costa del pueblo Europeo).
Moreno, otro crítico UPC, citó al Kluwer Blog de Patentes (parte de un ala del equipo de la UPC) como diciendo “El Reino Unido tiene ahora que tomar ciertas decisiones políticas. Cualquier cosa que decidan, la UPC seguirá adelante “(suena bastante vano y asertivo).
Miren quien promovió esta “Conferencia de Munich” y el post del blog de la patente Kluwer. Y otra en el blog de Patent WatchTroll hay una columna de Bird & Bird sobre “Implicaciones Brexit” (Kluwer Blog de Patentes está conectado a Bird & Bird, que es una parte fundamental del equipo de la UPC). Los defensores de las patentes de software en Europa como Bastian Best van más lejos al promover este seminario en Londres y diciendo: “Este será un interesante seminario” Protección de Patentes de Invenciones relacionados con el software en Europa y EE.UU.”” (en otras palabras, la promoción de las patentes de software en a pesar de la EPC).
“En el caso de la UPC, como uno podría esperar, es un grupo de firma de abogados de patentes que escribe las leyes a puertas cerradas (no transcripciónes publicadas) y luego piden a los políticos que les pongan la estampa de goma..”
Quizás lo más interesante será la composición de los asistentes a este seminario Londres. A juzgar por este Tweet Publicado hace varios días (“Post Conferencia #Brexit #UPC en #EPO en #Munich mañana http://bit.ly/29y0AAT @ EIPLegal de Rob Smith Lundie asistir – buscar actualizaciones”), Battistelli también estaba allí ( “#UP #UPC actualización de conferencias – #Battistelli proporciona visión personal de #brexit en #UPC – ya sea Reino Unido ratifica o retraso UPC hasta Reino Unido deja UE”). Bueno, Battistelli habrá dejado para entonces (se puede tomar 2,5 años) y la EPO se encuentra actualmente en un estado de crisis (de la propia creación de Battistelli). La UPC, ya que se previó está muerto / morir, pero persisten las fantasías de la UPC y sus creadores continuar como si nada hubiera pasado (“#UP Conferencia #UPC: Dr. Carsten Zulch: jueces técnicamente cualificados significa bifurcación en virtud de la UPC sólo tiene sentido en circunstancias limitadas …” )
“Las leyes de la UE [están] escritos por las grandes corporaciónes”, señaló Henrion “, y luego se preguntan por qué la gente votó por Brexit. Especialmente cuando espectro podría ser liberado en su lugar”.
“Cuando no hay transcripciones escritas de lo Miembro del Parlamento Europeo dice en la comisión”, agregó, “no seas sorprendido porque la gente vota por #brexit [...] hace 15 años solicité por escrito transcripciones de las discusiones en los comités de el Parlamento Europeo, estamos todavía muy lejos “(fuente)
En el caso de la UPC, como uno podría esperar, es un grupo de firma de abogados de patentes que escribe las leyes a puertas cerradas (no transcripciónes publicadas) y luego piden a los políticos que les pongan la estampa de goma. Recuerde que la UPC Chair comité selecciónadoes parte de la colusión para anular la ley en Europa y este tweet de la conferencia dijo “#UP Conferencia #UPC: Cátedra UPC comité selecto – Reino Unido todavía podría ratificar y políticos mensaje Brexit puede o no puede encontrar el camino para mantener Reino Unido en … “(todo especulativa).
“Dado el tiempo que Brexit podría tomar, esto parece cada vez más un escenario pausible,” MIP escribió acerca de ello.
“Vimos la misma falta de cubrimiénto rodeando a la TTIP y la TPP en los pasados años; esto se cimentó en secretividad y a veces en complicidad.”
“No hay críticos de la UPC están hablando ahí”, señaló Henrion, con una link a esta página. Esta conspiración de auto-enriquecimiento mediante patentes abogados y sus grandes clientes requiere mantener al público afuera de ello, inconsciente y totalmente al margen. Estas personas están tratando de embestir a la UPC por las gargantas de nuestros políticos y cuanto más el público se entere, peor será para el equipo de la UPC. “Preparaciones del Reino Unido para la ratificación #UPC están acabados”, escribió Patently German. “La ratificación, sin embargo, será decisión del nuevo PM espera que asumirá el cargo en septiembre” (tienen problemas mucho más urgentes que tratar con distinta UPC).
Como de costumbre, todas estas reuniones secretas no estaban cubiertos por los medios de comunicación. Había un montón de mentiras sobre él en la página web de la EPO y los blogs equipo de la UPC. Battistelli, a expensas de la EPO, comprá artículos ” en ” los medios de comunicación europeo, a veces “artículos” o piezas de hojaldre a favor de la UPC (algunos de sus ‘socios de los medios’ lo ha hecho desde el año pasado). Qué desgracia ! Vimos la misma falta de cubrimiénto rodeando a la TTIP y la TPP en los pasados años; esto se cimentó en secretividad y a veces en complicidad.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA