03.17.16
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 1:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When all votes count as equal…
Published only hours ago. Where next? Croatia?
Also see: Benoît Battistelli: “An Earthquake Would be Needed for the Administrative Council... Not to Support My Major Proposals.”
Summary: Today’s reminder that Battistelli is not at all monitored or ‘bossed’ by the Administrative Council, which he not only comes from but also offers incentives to (days after waving EPO money at Dutch politicians in an effort to influence them to place the EPO above the law)
BACK in the days — nearly a whole decade ago — we used to thoroughly cover Microsoft’s use of corruption to make Microsoft Office an ‘open’ ‘standard’. Given enough money, power, connections etc. one can conceivably achieve anything, especially in poor countries where even dental treatment is a massive treat. Remember that Microsoft offered financial incentives to entire countries (or politicians’ own cities) in an effort to buy their votes. Conversely, sometimes blackmail gets used (“do what we say, or else…”). We covered examples of that. Well, Microsoft still relies on bribes (to officials) to get business 'done'.
The EPO, which is especially close to Microsoft, is hardly any better. Rather than label itself a private or ‘public’ (in the shareholders sense) corporation it is an international body that acts like a corporation and enjoys exemptions from the law. It even calls itself “European”, even though the only European thing about it is the staff. The EPO is connected to some very powerful people from all over the world and therefore it guards powerful people, obviously at the expense of ordinary Europeans. Battistelli is a good example or a symptom of this, for reasons we covered here many times before. Battistelli often looks more and more (at least appears to outsiders) like he’s carrying out the orders or instructions of somebody else (or many somebodies). The way I personally look at it (yes, personally), Battistelli is the first domino piece to fall and serve as a deterrence against those who follow his footsteps and implement so-called ‘reforms’ that abolish human rights, commonwealth, etc. Next on the list might be Kongstad, e.g. for protecting Battistelli for many years and then hiding his contract. EPO workers need Kongstad to get Battistelli out, but they won’t see it any time soon because Battistelli is Kongstad’s predecessor and the latter now acts more like his guardian (we first pointed this out in 2014). In order to implement popular change (not corporate/billionaires’ change) at the EPO, the Administrative Council too needs to be tackled. They’re mostly lawyers from national patent offices, they’re not scientists or examiners. They too need to be shaken a bit. Then, staff may move on to other culprits (whose power if not reputation as well will be simpler to destroy based purely on their unethical actions, as they’re low-profile people compared to Battistelli and Kongstad).
“Well, Microsoft still relies on bribes (to officials) to get business ‘done’.”The EPO scandals will surely outlive Battistelli and Kongstad, so EPO staff should be prepared for a longer struggle before sanity is restored, the EPC is obeyed, human rights are respected and so on.
As one reader put it the other day: “It can be a course of events, but I am afraid the domino effect might not be as automatic as we wish. For sure active pressure, e.g. by media and union action, will be needed and still well organized. Laws in and about EPO are murky, so that no matter how unreasonable and indefensible some managers’ behaviour might be, they might still get away with it.
“Another key factor would be to get ever more examiners getting out of the dark when showing support and denouncing abuses. This could set the beginning of an end, so to say.
“Another key factor would be to get ever more examiners getting out of the dark when showing support and denouncing abuses.”
–Anonymous“If Battistelli’s and/or Kongstad’s ditching takes longer than this year, we might lose the momentum, with examiners retreating their heads in their necks and Union back in its self-referential playing of pretending to be Machiavellis they never were, and as if they have a hundred years to play about.”
Earlier today some people’s hearts sank because they came to realise that the Administrative Council is not on their side. Doctored results and fake union recognition at EPO apparently fooled those who wished to be fooled. This didn’t surprise us at all, but it’s only an expected step, probably to be followed by strikes.
In the mean time, as there is a personal aspect to my activism/reporting in this area (I am a software engineer worried about software patents), I decided to also take personal action and therefore contacted some delegates. I sent them the following message a few days ago:
I am writing to you as a concerned European and as a software professional based in the UK. As you may know, the management of the EPO is under heavy attack for its mistreatment of staff, which even led to an imminent Office-wide strike and resulted in staff suicides (see TV coverage from earlier this month in Germany). However, I am a lot more concerned at the moment about a parade of misinformation, intended to distract from this and also mislead delegates of your country, who shall soon be attending the Administrative Council meeting in Munich. I want to keep this short, so let me highlight two kinds of lies you may be told by the EPO. The first lie concerns so-called union recognition. There is no such thing at the EPO, except a quasi-staged signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with a tiny union that hardly represents even 1% of staff at the EPO (the real union represents about half of all staff). This is intended to lull delegates into the illusion that relationships between staff and management have improved. It’s far from the truth. In fact, over 91% of staff which voted on a strike last week voted in favour. EPO workers are unwilling to tolerate the abusive management, in spite of their salary and despite the risk of voting in favour of a strike (the ballot provides no real privacy). The second point I must stress is that when the EPO claims improved performance, efficiency, results etc. these claims must be regarded as dubious/questionable at best. Numerous people, professionals in the field in fact, have already demonstrated that the EPO uses misleading statistics in order to give an illusion of success. This, in their minds, is intended to distract from (or justify) the aforementioned abuses and consequent unrest.
Over the past few months I’ve covered examples where the EPO lies not only to staff but also to journalists. In a desperate effort to salvage their reputation they are now creating an alternate reality. Sceptical analysis of EPO claims thus becomes a survival skill.
I want to see the EPO repaired. I wish to see it serving the European people and European interests. Right now the EPO is merely being used by very few people to advance their personal interests and this is unsustainable. It will, over the long run, damage Europe’s science, technology, and reputation.
My sincere regards,
Roy Schestowitz
Judging based on the message from John Alty today (UK-IPO), whom I contacted a few days ago, there’s no pleasant surprise, just the expected complicity. “Just back from @EPOorg Council meeting,” he wrote. “Strong statement of Council’s expectations to encourage improved social engagement.”
“Amid abuses that are widely recognised both at the EPO and outside of it the ‘opposition’ sounds like not even a slap on the wrist (hardly even that).”It’s hardly a strong statement. Amid abuses that are widely recognised both at the EPO and outside of it the ‘opposition’ sounds like not even a slap on the wrist (hardly even that).
Earlier today one anonymous person sent us a stream of messages about the outcome of the Administrative Council meeting. Among them:
- “Unfortunately hard measures against Battistelli are off the table! The AC welcomed the impressive results for production & quality.”
- “In order to address the social issues, the AC and Battistelli jointly agreed to launch a programme of actions to be implemented in the coming months.”
- “The revision of the investigation guidelines, which was launched by the office in January, and the revision of disciplinary proc.”
- “of course they do however the supreme question here remains unanswered, that is… who is the axis of evil? BB of the AC?”
- “That was the biggest mistake ever and I warned in the past. Clearly a conflict in interests.”
- “well it isn’t over yet, we need to wait till the end of the day to get a real picture of the situation, let’s keep our fingers”
- “that is in preparation and the next logical step. Sad to say that a few thousands of staff members will be downhearted today!”
“It was rather unlikely all along that Administrative Council folks would be the ones to take serious action against Battistelli; not therein lies redemption anyway (the Administrative Council is simply too self-absorbed to care about EPO staff).”My response to the above was, EPO workers should go on strike and denounce not only EPO management but also the Administrative Council for being supine, complicit, and disinterested. It was rather unlikely all along that Administrative Council folks would be the ones to take serious action against Battistelli; not therein lies redemption anyway (the Administrative Council is simply too self-absorbed to care about EPO staff). This one comment which we received earlier today put in context this EPO announcement (warning: epo.org link) that we had noticed hours earlier. There is also this post-meeting hogwash (warning: epo.org link) for those who believe what the EPO says to the media. The latest EPO propaganda now tries to paint the Office as poor-friendly/SME-friendly (a total lie amid PACE propaganda in Twitter today, as well as more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP) and also serves to highlight what may have happened behind the scenes. In the words of the commenter:
I see Mr. Battistelli has signed an agreement to subsidize searches carried out for Lithuanians as for “Cyprus and other member states”. Only a cynic would suggest that this is a mechanism to encourage these states to support him in the AC.
EPO link: http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2016/20160317.html
Some believed that Battistelli had "bribed" lower management for support (like Microsoft did for OOXML at ISO) and now again some interpret that as a bribe. This is not sufficient evidence, but still, it cannot count for nothing at all. There is at the very least a perception that Battistelli gave some gifts and got one back. Remember Battistelli’s money-waving strategy when dealing with Dutch politicians. It hardly works in rich countries.
There is already an article about this latest development. It comes from NRC. Human-corrected machine translation of this article was provided, as usual, by Petra Kramer, who put it as follows:
EPO Member States want fair sanctions
[Kramer: They changed the headline. First it was “After criticism EPO workers now getting fair sanctions”
see: http://drimble.nl/overige/business/34514479/na-kritiek-krijgen-werknemers-europees-octrooibureau-nu-eerlijke-sancties.html]
Majority votes for compromise over sanctions
The controversial punitive measures for employees of the European Patent Office, with among others an office in Rijswijk, are to be reviewed. With 12 abstentions 26 of the 38 Member States of the office Wednesday in Munich have voted in favour of fair sanctions, sources confirm.
The international organization (7,000 employees) accepts patent applications and grants European patents. The position of the President of the Agency, the Frenchman Benoît Battistelli (65) is under pressure because of his “authoritarian” management style. During a critical interview in early March with State Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs, Labour Party) which Battistelli left in anger, this newspaper reported Wednesday.
The Governing Council, the highest body consists of the 38 member states, including the Netherlands, have great concern about the dismissal and demotion of three members of SUEPO trade union and the works council. So far Battistelli showed not to be very receptive to this criticism. In leaked minutes of February, the board of the Management Board described the situation as “a crisis.”
The council, which met Wednesday and Thursday in Munich, would rather an external investigation into the sanctions. In today’s resolution, which today is made public, that demand has been weakened. Battistelli must now consider an investigation or intervention through mediation or arbitration. The management board calls the patent office and the trade union to resume social dialogue and to reach an agreement. The president has embraced the content of the resolution, according to the patent office.
As an international organization the patent office claims not to be bound by national labour law. Battistelli does not recognize SUEPO union, which represents half of the total staff, either. The patent office has its own disciplinary procedures and an internal investigation service to screen workers. The method of this investigation service and the penalty rules are to be revised.
It is unclear what will happen to the trade unionists who are punished because of a “corruption campaign.” The Dutch Elizabeth Hardon, chairman of SUEPO in Munich, was fired and her pension was reduced. Her predecessor Ion Brumme was fired and the treasurer of the union, Malika Weaver was cut in her salary. Other members of the union have received official warnings.
Lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld of the union calls Battistelli to undo the dismissals and demotion. “Battistelli abuse of his authority and power as he decides to expel the three union officials in Munich,” said Zegveld. “He is thus acting in blatant contradiction with the express wish of the Member States to improve social conditions and to protect the union.”
Notice that the above cites/quotes documents we leaked last night (at around 2 AM).
Is the EPO peaceful now? No.
“For the second day in a row in Twitter, the EPO lobbied for software patents (using the weasel word “ICT”) and will do the same tomorrow.”There will almost certainly be strikes soon.
Is the EPO’s propaganda over? No.
For the second day in a row over at Twitter, the EPO subtly lobbied for software patents (using the weasel word “ICT”) and will do the same tomorrow [1, 2]. The EPO arrogantly stomps on the EPC as nobody seems to be able to stop it. These liars keep citing their own bunk 'statistics' today [1, 2, 3], even when there are demonstrable issues with these. IAM ‘magazine’, which unwittingly uses a survey to give Battistelli his usual propaganda/ammunition, is now offering gifts in exchange for participating in the latest round of propaganda (maybe SUEPO's surveys scare Battistelli a little too much). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Martijn van Dam goes ahead with the plan
Summary: Increasing acceptance and acknowledgement of the human/labour rights issues inside the European Patent Office (EPO), as recognised even by host nations such as the Netherlands
THE EPO turns out to be a terrible place to work at/for. A TV program previously explained why, helping those who don’t actually work at the EPO get a glimpse from the inside (witnesses were anonymised).
Benoît Battistelli nearly had an opportunity to de-escalate, but he blew it and exploded with his notorious temper. Human-corrected machine translation of this article has been provided to us by Petra Kramer. It covers this week’s encounter/rendezvous involving Martijn van Dam and Benoît Battistelli.
Fruitless conversation with controversial patent boss
THE HAGUE / RIJSWIJK (Reuters) – CEO Benoît Battistelli is accused of conducting a reign of terror at the European Patent Office, but a “firm” interview that Secretary Martijn van Dam (Economic Affairs) held with the highest boss yielded nothing. The European Patent Office is an international organization with 38 Member States, including all members of the European Union. Rijswijk is is home to one of its offices.
“The call, to my disappointment, has not led to any new perspectives,” Van Dam wrote Wednesday to the House of Commons. The House, as the government, is deeply concerned about the leadership of the patent boss which has been described as a “tyrannical”. Those concerns have been brought over in vain by Van Dam on 4 March.
There will be an investigation into the working conditions at the Patent Office, Van Dam announced earlier this year. When workers protested against poor working environment and against the dismissal of colleagues who criticized the Frenchman Battistelli. The agency is to reorganize and the government and parliament already have made it known that it should implement those reforms more carefully.
As the latest staff survey comes to show, staff is suffering and the working conditions have deteriorated severely. An external probe is desperately needed now. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 6:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Credit: Bilski Blog
Summary: A bunch of stories of interest regarding the USPTO, which is the world’s most dominant patent office
THIS is the latest update regarding the US patent system, which increasingly shows some positive signs (getting tougher on software patents) but still facilitates a lot of avoidable aggression, and not just by patent trolls.
AliceStorm Versus Software Patents
“The US patent system (or Congress) needs to reconsider whether software patents should be issued at all.”Bilski Blog calls/dubs "AliceStorm" the phenomenon of patent squashing after Alice (2014). A lot of these are software patents, which are abstract. Looking at some of the latest posts about this [1, 2, 3] (the last one was cited here before), we now have the chart at the top. It shows that most of the time, by a large margin, Alice successfully buries software patents. The USPTO needs to heed the warning from courts (not just the Supreme Court but dozens more). The US patent system (or Congress) needs to reconsider whether software patents should be issued at all.
Apple and Samsung
Apple started attacking Samsung several years ago because Apple cannot compete based on merit. Apple wants to make Android more expensive and also Apple’s cash cow. That is similar to what Microsoft has been doing. “Samsung and Apple Were Top Targets for Patent Suits in 2015″ says a new headline from Fortune, noting:
The country’s two most popular phone makers, Apple AAPL and Samsung, are still getting smacked by dozens of lawsuits from so-called “patent trolls,” which are shell companies that make no products.
Meanwhile, a single district in Texas, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia once branded a “renegade jurisdiction,” continues to occupy an outsize role in this ongoing patent pileup.
Those are two of the most notable takeaways that can be found in a new report on U.S. patent trends in 2015. Published by patent analytics firm Lex Machina, the report adds new grist to a debate over U.S. innovation policy at a time when patent reform in Congress has foundered once again.
“With Alice still fresh in people’s mind (although apparently forgotten by some Justices, based on newly-circulated rumours), Apple is likely to lose.”“Blame Texas for the latest patent pile-up falling on Apple and Samsung,” says this person, cited by Florian Müller who added this Friday watchlist alert. Müller wrote: “Earlier this month (on Friday, March 4), the Supreme Court of the United States already had Samsung’s December 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple’s design patents case on its agenda. It’s nothing unusual for a case to be relisted, and it happened in this case. There was no weekly conference last Friday, so this cert petition will be discussed this week, and we’ll know the decision (unless there’s another relisting) on Monday morning.”
It is possible that SCOTUS will deal with at least one case that Apple brought against Samsung. With Alice still fresh in people’s mind (although apparently forgotten by some Justices, based on newly-circulated rumours), Apple is likely to lose.
Jawbone and Fitbit
Involving some more design and software patents, the Jawbone and Fitbit story was covered here several times in the past. Here is the latest on that: “For nearly a year Jawbone and Fitbit have been in the courts and Jawbone just threw down new allegations. In a motion to amend the original filing, Jawbone wants to add a new defendant to the case that formerly worked at Jawbone but defected to Fitbit, bringing a host of confidential information along with her. Jawbone also now contends that this person, along with previously named defendants, lied under oath that they had returned all confidential Jawbone information prior to leaving the company.”
“Nobody wins except the lawyers. These cases drag on for ages.”There is a lot more coverage about it this week [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and it comes to show just what a sordid mess patent wars have become. Nobody wins except the lawyers. These cases drag on for ages.
Miscellany
A new article by Dennis Crouch says about a particular low-profile case that: “The original panel found that the sale constituted an invalidating on-sale bar. Of interest here, the “sale” was Ben Venue’s “sale of services” to manufacture the patented product-by-process rather than sales of the product themselves. The original panel found no principled distinction between these concepts – thus applying the on sale bar. Because the ‘sales’ at issue were associated with MedCo’s ‘validation batches,’ the patentee has also now argued experimental use.”
“If patents are about common good rather than protectionism for a few, then China should follow the will of its people, not of its patent lawyers (whose clients are often foreign).”Notice how far patents can go; even “sale of services”, not just manufacturing or sale of manufactured goods. How far can this go? Western patents, as this article from MIP suggests, can also be imposed on manufacturing giants/superpowers such as China. Why would China even entertain this? It’s not in the interests of China, that’s for sure, as most companies already manufacture everything in China. They hardly have a choice. “In determining the scope of patent protection in China,” MIP wrote, “the question of support for the claims has come into focus, particularly for bio-medical inventions. Wenhui Zhang and Stephen Zou review some recent decisions” (from China).
As we noted in relation to India the other day, patents on medicine are in no way beneficial to the interests of a large population such as China’s. If patents are about common good rather than protectionism for a few, then China should follow the will of its people, not of its patent lawyers (whose clients are often foreign). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The only thing left for the EPO to do is lie to the media as a media strategy…
Summary: Parallels or similarities between the FIFA scandal and the EPO scandal are becoming ever more evident as the EPO resorts to fictitious versions of reality, where all the problems basically boil down to some violent vocal minority and management is merely the victim of a smear campaign
THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING media cannot ignore this for much longer (we’re not speaking about patents-centric niche sites). The EPO scandals are mainstream news in central Europe and it’s not looking good for the management of the EPO, which is consistently being blamed.
“Ms. Hardon’s lawyer, who also represents the unnamed Irish judge, denies the accusations against both, calling them “invented allegations.””
–HandelsblattThere are at least 4 articles about it in German (mentioned yesterday), plus several more today in the German media (some behind paywalls) and Dutch media [1, 2] (same here and here). Surely there is a lot more, but we’re not able to detect it (instead we see press releases about the EPO in English).
One German newspaper, Handelsblatt, has just published this article in English. “Daggers Drawn at European Patent Office” is a somewhat odd title (article’s headline), implying a two-sided battle. Only the EPO’s PR team portrays staff as violent and it’s a fictitious narrative. The article says that “In some cases people were even threatened with violence.” Battistelli et al uses defamatory innuendo against Hardon, as if she's some violent, aggressive person. They try to ruin her good reputation while at the same time frame themselves as the victims (a rather Orwellian reversal, that's for sure).
“Hardon’s lawyer,” according to the article below, “also represents the unnamed Irish judge” and “denies the accusations against both, calling them “invented allegations.””
“Battistelli et al uses defamatory innuendo against Hardon, as if she’s some violent, aggressive person.”Battistelli lives in his own fantasy world where whistleblowers and representatives/judges are basically just Nazis and criminals. For those who are baffled by what Battistelli keeps telling the media about EPO, consider the possibility that an alternate reality was chosen and he is now self-deluding, surrounded by an echo chamber that only ever tells him what he wishes to hear, irrespective of the harsh reality. This Napoleonic President of the EPO won’t go away without a fight and definitely not without lying to the media (we wrote about this last night). To quote the publicly-accessible text from Handelsblatt:
The European Patent Office is wracked with conflicts, as its tough-minded French chief executive looks to put down union unrest and bizarre plots.
[...]
The European Patent Office, also known as the EPO, is witnessing a power struggle between its tough-minded French president, Benoît Battistelli, and the employee organization SUEPO. The battle of wills is escalating in the run-up to Wednesday’s crisis session of the organization’s administrative council.
In an interview with Handelsblatt, Mr. Battistelli accused a senior SUEPO figure, Elizabeth Hardon, of running a campaign of defamation. “She intimidated elected staff representatives,” he said. “In some cases people were even threatened with violence.”
At the beginning of the year, Ms. Hardon, an EPO patent examiner, was fired at Mr. Battistelli’s insistence. Internal investigations, he said, had revealed severe breaches of EPO staff regulations. As part of the investigations, an Irish patent judge was also suspended from his position after two truncheons were discovered in his office, in addition to Nazi propaganda pamphlets. Ms. Hardon’s lawyer, who also represents the unnamed Irish judge, denies the accusations against both, calling them “invented allegations.”
The administrative council had asked Mr. Battistelli to defuse the conflict at the Patent Office, one of Europe’s most lavishly funded administrative organizations. But the president, who has been restructuring the office to cut runaway costs and speed up patent processing times, has refused to allow the trade union SUEPO to exercise a veto over his decisions. He insisted Ms. Hardon’s dismissal must stand.
SUEPO has responded by calling for a protest demonstration outside Wednesday’s council meeting in Munich.
The rest of this article is behind a paywall. We have some translations on the way, but we need more help with that. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.16.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English slides (finish to start):
French slides:
Summary: Central SUEPO Committee releases the results of a survey which a high proportion of staff took a part in (nearly 40%)
BOARD 28 says there's a crisis at the EPO and the new survey (outlined above) shows that this is an understatement at best. No, this isn’t a survey from Sun King (EPO President, Battistelli) or the Administrative Council but a survey that comes from the staff itself because the circle of Sun King manufactures propaganda and something that’s misleadingly named "social study" (more like socialist or Communist type of ‘study’, i.e. propaganda for supporting the party line). Rumours suggest that the Spaniard Jesús Areso was the subject of union-busting ‘investigations’ for merely trying to arrange a staff satisfaction survey — one that’s not controlled by Sun King and his party (or circle) for self-glorification purposes.
“These are self-explanatory and simple enough for anyone aged 10 or above to interpret and understand.”Using the GIMP (GNU software) I have generated animated slideshows that summarise all that’s in the PDFs in English and in French. These are self-explanatory and simple enough for anyone aged 10 or above to interpret and understand.
“There used to be a staff survey which was abolished by Battistelli,” one reader told us. “Why ask people’s opinion when it’s obvious that staff is entirely happy and fully behind their beloved leader, except a few disgruntled felons who will be disposed of in due course…
“SUEPO ran on its own the survey with the essentially same questions as the earlier ones.
“SUEPO ran on its own the survey with the essentially same questions as the earlier ones.”
–Anonymous“Surprise! The results are even worse than the earlier ones…
“I’m not sure that the AC [Administrative Council] will be impressed.”
Judging by how many people voted for a strike, there’s consistency here. There’s no happiness at all, just increasing anxiety and stress. Does this help explain the surge in suicides? Watch the (dis)trust rates towards both Battistelli and the Administrative Council. It’s virtually zero. Here is the covering letter, so to speak:
Zentraler Vorstand . Central Executive Committee . Bureau Central
16/03/2016
su16044cp – 0.2.4
Preliminary results of the EPO Staff Survey 2016 (run by Technologia)
Dear colleagues,
The 2016 Staff Survey is now completed. Thanks to all of you who participated!
Some preliminary results are accessible in English and in French. They will be also brought to the attention of the Delegations of the Administrative Council today.
The final results and analysis will follow in due course.
As you know, this year’s survey asked the same questions as the previous surveys held in 2010 and 2013, in order to be able to compare the results and secure reliable benchmarks. Although we await the complete assessment by Technologia, it is already manifest that there has been a deterioration in our collective experience of work at the EPO.
We thank you for your trust and support. Rest assured of our commitment to trying to improve the situation.
Your Central SUEPO Committee
Remember this: nothing hurts the tyrants at the EPO as much as transparency and facts. The management is lying to staff and to journalists these days. That’s how terrible things have gotten. It’s going to further erode trust, both internally and externally, damaging the image of both the Office and the Organisation unless things radically change — and fast! █
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”
–Andre Gide
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Helping and serving to refute some of the lies Battistelli has told the media as of late
In their own words…
Summary: A truly revealing leaked document (aged one week) shows that there is a deep disagreement between the Board and the President (for now) of the EPO
BOARD 28 is secretive, but sooner or later — just as in the case of TPP and TTIP or ACTA — we get lucky enough to see what’s inside. The EPO‘s management has a lot to hide, but it’s not hiding it too well (except perhaps Battistelli’s ultra-secret contract). One concise summary was published here recently in English and in Spanish. An additional document, released a week ago as well (but confidential nonetheless), has landed on our lap and here it is. Our remarks on the text can be found below.
E28/2/16
Orig.: en
Munich, 09.03.2016
SUMMARY
OF
CONCLUSIONS
of the
70th meeting of the
BOARD OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Munich, 2 February 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Council Secretariat
ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information)
This document has been issued in electronic form only.
1. The Board of the Administrative Council (“the Board”) held its 70th meeting in Munich on 2 February 2016, with Mr Kongstad in the chair
Mr Grossenbacher had in formed the Chairman that he was not able to attend.
2. The Board adopted the provisional agenda set out in B28/1/16 e, with the addition of a new item on the recent disciplinary cases.
3. The Board focused on the disciplinary cases. An in-depth discussion shows controversial and sometimes conflicting views between the Board members and the President on both the legal elements and the political background. The social dialogue has clearly been brought to a halt, and the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency. The Board qualified the situation as a crisis – a view challenged by the President.
4. The Board made proposals in order to assist the President in his handling of the situation. Mechanisms were proposed in order to prepare the next B28 meeting, and an informal meeting with the President was decided.
5. Due to time constraints, the Board decided to postpone the other items on the agenda to its next meeting.
6. On the issue of the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal, Mr Battistelli stressed that the B28 should not conduct hearings of administrative units of the Office — institutional aspects are here of utmost importance. In view of this position of the President, the Board agreed to invite, jointly with the President, some representatives of the BoA for an exchange of views ahead of its next meeting.
Grossenbacher was absent (he is often seen as a defender of Battistelli, as we explained before). The Board added “a new item on the recent disciplinary cases” by essentially changing the agenda that was expected by one like Battistelli (unpleasant surprise to him for sure, but he didn’t storm out in anger like earlier this week). “The Board focused on the disciplinary cases,” so this is what took the lion’s share of the time and basically prevented much of the rest of the agenda from being reached at all. They disagreed on “both the legal elements and the political background” and there is no indication of anyone in the Board siding with Battistelli.
“They disagreed on “both the legal elements and the political background” and there is no indication of anyone in the Board siding with Battistelli.”“The social dialogue has clearly been brought to a halt,” it says, so clearly they too realise that the whole ‘union recognition’ was nonsensical theatre.
The above adds that “the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency.”
“The Board qualified the situation as a crisis,” which probably refutes what Battistelli has been telling the media since then. This is a “view challenged by the President,” so he clearly chooses to live in a world of his own.
“The above adds that “the matters under examination are to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency.””It should be noted that “an informal meeting with the President was decided.” We don’t know the date yet (if any was agree on already).
The crisis is so big in fact that “the Board decided to postpone the other items on the agenda to its next meeting.” The item added to the agenda at the 90th minute was treated as so urgent that everything else got thrown aside. And Battistelli still insists that everything is under control? Who is he kidding?
“And Battistelli still insists that everything is under control?”The last item above speaks of the Boards of Appeal and says they’ll invite “some representatives of the BoA for an exchange of views ahead of its next meeting.”
Maybe they should invite that judge whom Battistelli illegally suspended (on 'house ban') and learn from that judge about Željko Topić, in case they don’t know enough already (everyone seems to be aware by now), whereupon they may finally get down to the core of many of these issues that keep escalating. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 5:04 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: El resultado de la reunión de hoy con Benoît Battistelli resultó en la imminente initiación de la acción de huelga, a la que Battistelli continua tratando de demorar/bloquear
El Comité Central de Personal extendió una rama de olivo a Benoît Battistelli, pero el se cagó en la noticia. Es tan terco y orgulloso de sí mismo, ya que toma la ley entre sus manos (de las manos de aquellos calificados para hacerlo).
El reportje en la reunión de hoy esta disponible y aquí está como HTML:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Comité Central de Personal
15.03.2016
sc16045cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2
Queridos Colegas,
La reunión entre el Comité Central de Personal y el Presidente acaba de terminar. Duró poco más de dos horas. El Presidente estuvo acompañado de VP 1, VP 2, VP 4, PD 4.3 y otros consejeros.Algunos otros miembros de Comité Local de Personal también estuvieron presentes, pero – como declararón sin intervención – sólo en calidad de observadores. Aunque todos los puntos de la Agenda fueron discutidos y CSC hizo propuestas constructivas, el Presidente no tuvo voluntad de ceder de ninguna manera a nuestras peticiones.
Como su interlocutor en el reciénte llamado a la huelga (91% de empleados votaron a favor), preguntamos al Presidente tomar una posición las siguientes preguntas. Sus respuestas estan sumarizadas abajo:
● ¿Levantará Ud. los castigos disciplinarios contra Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver?
El Presidente dijo que estaba estrictamente atado por las reglas: por los castigos disciplinarios, primero una revisión gerencial debe ser llenada, y el procedimiento de ley (ultimamente revizada por ILO-AT) seguirá. El Presidente no aceptó las propuestas del CSC compatibles con las reglas existentes para recibir consejo y reconsiderar sus desiciones. Tampoco, a pesar del largo tiempo para un procedimient ante ILO-AT, el Presidente no aceptó nuestras propuestas a sujetar las decisiones a una revision externa e independiente al involver renombrados expertos legales. Tampoco supo que una revisión gerencial ya ha sido llenada; sin embargo, PD 4.3 confirmó que este fue el caso.
● ¿Levantará Ud. los castigos disciplinarios contra los previos miembroos del Comité Interno de Apelaciones?
De nuevo el Presidente declaro que estaba atado por las reglas. En este caso el tiempo para una revisión gerencial expiró y el no tiene la intención de revisar las respectivas decisiones.
● ¿Detendrá Ud. las amenazas disciplinarias, investigaciones y retalaciones contra más representantes de los Empleados?
El Presidente no comentó en esta pregunta.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado a revisar las Guías de Investigación junto a la Representación de Empleados basado en un mandato acordado por ambas partes?
El Presidente declaró que consideraría una futura revisión. Sin embargo, consideró cualquier clase de revocación legal y políticamente imposible y rechazó hacer tal proposición al Consejo. Más aún, cualquier emmienda resultante de una futura revisión no puede ser implementada retroactivamente. La CSC estresó que decisiones favorables pueden tener efecto retroactivo. El Presidente no aceptó trabajar junto a Representantes de Empleados bajo un mandato acordado, ya que este implicaría ser usado como derecho de veto a la opinión del Presidente.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado para adaptar las regulaciones de huelga de acuerdo al juicio de la Corte Holandesa?
El Presidente dijo que hubieron muchas decisiones contrarias entregadas por las cortes nacionales que cuestionaron la materia de inmunidad. El Presidente resaltó que la pregunta en cuestión ya ha sido referida a la Corte Suprema con apoyo del gobierno Holandes.
● ¿Está Ud. preparado para revisar las regulaciones de salud, permiso por enfermedad junto a los Representantes de Empleados basado en un acuerdo mutuo?
El Presidente reconoció que revisiones son necesarias y están en progreso. Refiriéndose a un estudio social que viene, el Presidente declaró que esto sería un útil indicador de cambios necesarios. Por lo tanto, no puede contemplar una mayor revisión antes del Otoño.
● ¿Qué otras concesiones Ud. se ofrece a hacer?
No propuestas fueron hechas.
El Presidente no estuvo de acuerdo que la Oficina esta en crisis. Era de la opinión que tenía apoyo pleno del Consejo de acuerdo asu punto de vista. Por lo tanto CSC no puede ver alguna razón de postponer la huelga. Sin embargo, nuestra decisión final en esta materia únicamente será tomada de acuerdo con el resultado de la reunión del Consejo Administrativo.
Su Comité Central de Personal
Si Battistelli ¨no estuvo de acuerdo que la Oficina está en crisis,¨ esta claro que él esta delirando, probablemente viviendo su auto-engaño cuando fué publicado esta tontería hoy en Munich. Una persona online lo llamo ¨DEPRIMENTE & DISGUSTANTE!!! Nada pero MENTIRAS!¨ (¿Qué esperaban de Pinocho?)
Si alguién por favor pudiera enviarnos una traducción, podríamos preparar una respuesta. Hay una gran campaña PR y si lo dejamos así ENGAÑARÁN a mucha gente en Munich y más alla. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 12:55 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No es probable que él acepte estas ofertas (o concesiones)…
La CSC extiende una rama de olivo a Monsieur Battistelli
Sumario: En medio de preparaciones para la huelga y una muy difícil reunión del Consejo Adminstrativo (comenzando hoy 16) el Presidente de la EPO recibe una oportunidad para reconocer sus errores y corregirlos (¿Superará su propio orgullo al aceptarlos?)
Hace VARIOS dias el Presidente del Consejo Administrativo fue contactado en un esfuerzo de minimizar cosas para desacerse de las actividades contra el Sindicato de parte de Monsieur Battistelli. Aquí esta el último comunicado del Comite Central de Empleados (CSC) de la EPO. Sugiere que ellos están buscado una resolución pacífica, en donde los representantes de empleados (SRs) recuperen sus trabajos y se reintegren a la fuerza de trabajo.
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
El Comité Central de Personal
15.03.2016
sc16043cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2
Queridos Colegas,
El Comité Central de Personal ha aceptado la invitación para ver al Presidente en la tarde del 15 de Marzo de 2016 en Munich para discutir la última llamada a la huelga (link). Esto es esta tarde antes de la reunión del Consejo. Una reunión previa el pasado 24 de Febrero con la Srta. Bergot acerca de lo mismo no obtuvo resultado alguno (link).
Como su interlocutor en el reciénte llamado a la huelga (91% de empleados votaron a favor), pediremos al Presidente preguntas concretas, incluyendo las de abajo y regresaremos a usteds con sus respuestas lo más pronto posible.
- ¿Levantará Ud. las sanciones disciplinarias contra Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme y Malika Weaver?
- ¿Levantará Ud. las sanciones disciplinarias contra los previos miembros del Comité Interno de Apelaciones?
- ¿Detendra usted las amenazas, investigacioness y retaliaciones contra adicionales Representativos de Empleados?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a revisar las Guías de Investigación junto a la Representación de Empleados basado en un mandateo que fue acordado por ambas partes?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a re-establecer un apropiado sistema IAC?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a adaptar las regulaciones de huelga de acuerdo al juicio de la Corte Holandesa?
- ¿Estará Ud. listo a revisar la invalidez de las regulaciones de salud, permiso por enfermedad junto a los Representantes de Empleados basado en un mandato acordado por ambas partes?
- ¿Qué otras concesiones estará usted ofreciendo?
Su Comite Central de Personal
Todo los puntos resaltados parecen perfectamente razonables considerando la rara naturaleza de las alegaciones y la falta de Battistelli a implementar los juicios como fueron pasados a él por el Comite Disciplinario – algo en que el Jurado 28 se angustiado por (llamó por una suspensión a los tres despidos y una externa re-evaluación de ellos). █
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