09.08.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Media as cheerleaders, not journalists
Summary: Managing IP (MIP), in addition to IAM, is pushing the EPO’s agenda, including the antidemocratic UPC, which MIP dedicated an entire event (even a couple) to
THE EPO is not a friend of Europe. Heck, it’s not even a friend of its own staff! See staff surveys about it.
Two days ago we wrote about MIP-EPO intersections (we refer to Managing IP as MIP for abbreviation) and earlier this week, just after Labor Day in the US (a long weekend), the EPO kicked off a series of propaganda (a seemingly new campaign). This means we’ll cover the subject more often and issue rebuttals more frequently than last month. We have a lot of material that we are eager to publish.
Battistelli is trying to grease up delegates/participants of the Administrative Council and pave the way to the UPC even if by truly nefarious tricks like entryism and lobbying. We won’t let him have his way. The guy is a liar. That’s an understatement actually. He’s thuggish, he’s manipulative and one might even say “corrupt” based on some of the recent appointments at the EPO’s management. The reason he has managed to keep his job (thus far, maybe until the term’s end) is a serious set of flaws in the EPC (which Battistelli ignores anyway) and the EPO’s detachment from national laws (Eponia makes up its own laws with no external review or discretion, then changes the laws as it goes along while management is allowed to break these laws).
Margot Fröhlinger (mentioned here for her UPC lobbying before) came from the EPO to MIP’s UPC advocacy event (there are actually two such events this week, for maximal impact). According to this MIP account (they have several), “Margot Fröhlinger believes UPC will go ahead with or without the UK. UK’s participation post-Brexit not a problem.”
Really? Will the EPO be lobbying with wishful thinking and self-fulfilling prophecy attempts? Again? Another tweet said: “Fröhlinger says there is a risk, no guarantees, but hopes CJEU will agree to UK participation in UPC.”
There’s also a photo in there. The EPO is a rogue organisation, so we are expecting it to game this debate and do whatever it takes to push forth such an antidemocratic UPC deal. It would push TTIP/TISA/CETA/TPP as well if it had to. ISDS would be very much in ‘the spirit’ of Battistelli.
Watch how MIP emphasises EPO views, which MIP entertains by setting up those two events. “That’s certainly one view,” it said. Well, good, so where are the opposing views? Oh, wait… that’s not part of the programme. They have essentially created a platform for EPO and UPC lobbying, trying to steer policy in the presence of people whom they try to influence. We saw that before in the US. We’ll get to that in a moment (IAM was responsible for that).
MIP then notes that “Winfried Tilmann of @HoganLovellsIP thinks if UK doesn’t ratify UPCA before Brexit, then door will be closed.”
Nice alarmism there from Winfried Tilmann, who is a Battistellite that mentioned earlier this year and at the start of the year. The truly ‘balanced’ panel of MIP sure begins to smell rather fishy. Is this a debate or an echo chamber? Maybe it’s more like a church where UPC is the undisputable religion.
“Lots of ‘different’ [sic] views on UPC,” claims MIP, but it just happens to be the case that all of them are in favour of the UPC, even though in reality the UPC would probably harm more than 99% of Europeans. No public interest groups are present (or speaking) at this event. When Managing IP says “Lots of different views on #UPC” it means it in the same way that Presidential Debates in the US, controlled and funded only by the two major parties, call the debates “different views” (it’s controlled, scripted, no hard questions and no absolutely public representation/intervention).
Going back to notable tweets, “George Moore of Sandoz: UPC without UK isn’t fatal.System beneficial. Cordula Schumacher: UK’s experience in early stages ideal” (assuming that passing the UPC would be “ideal”, which is in itself overly loaded and presumptuous a statement).
As expected, anti-FOSS and pro-software patents promotion creeps into this EPO-leaning event, in the form of FRAND. “According to Joachim Feldges, there is difference in opinion between German courts on Huawei v ZTE SEP FRAND guidance,” one tweet said. Another said: “Matthias Schneider of Audi: Needs to be clarity on what good value is re security & FRAND isn’t all about royalty rate.”
They are talking about SEPs, i.e. patents you are not allowed (or unable) to work around. We already mentioned how FRAND was on the agenda as well (before the event) and why it’s about software patents a lot of the time. “There is a view here that @EPOorg & @The_IPO are predictable on computer-related inventions. But be careful with drafting,” said another tweet. Just renaming software patents “computer-related inventions” won’t magically make them patentable, as software patents are clearly NOT legal in Europe. Here is what the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion said about it: “yet another quote to show that UPC is about swpats [software patents] after all.”
Mind the fact that the EPO is now promoting next week’s event about software patents (in part). The EPO is going to America! Yesterday it said: “Why is it important for US industry to protect its inventions in Europe? Find out at this event”
Today it said: “Join this event to find out about the differences between US & European practice for ICT patent applications” (“ICT” is just the latest weasel word/phrase).
Going back to the MIP event, this tweet said: “Here is what Graham Burnett-Hall of @marksandclerk thinks of BREXIT. He remains optimistic on UPC” (picture/photo included in there).
Wow, what a ‘diversity’ of views. Everyone is in favour of UPC (as intended), even if they know it’s unlikely to ever happen. Someone left the following comment in Techrights regarding this event, possibly conflating IAM with MIP, but here is what it said:
{i}[IAM]“We’re not in the business of promoting #UPC or #Unitarypatent – just providing a platform for discussion!”{/i}
Well, they’re right. They get paid for,prviding a meeting space for discussions among IP professionals.
The issue is extremely few want to discuss the advantages of “status quo”, which is incidentally also the current status “post-brexit-vote”. There is not more money for those advocating this position, but there may be more money in it for those who hope to profit from a change. So one side sees a chance to “invest”, the other sees no improvement in their position, so no need to invest, as any investment into defending “status quo” can never earn that money back.
So only one side will come in large numbers…
So of course the discussions will go towards one topic, and within that one topic be very one sided…
The IAM panels will include the “UPC will not happen” opinions, but those will usually be brushed aside for being “opposed to changes”…
Also, too me it felt like they do not want to have a look at real politics. The current brexit situation does not allow politics to do much in this regard right now, but this seemed to be out of grasp for their minds.
They want a change to happen, and find it difficult that politics sometimes cannot and will not listen to “expert”.
And the VolksWagen diesel scandal showed us where it goes when politicians listened too long to the opinions of “experts”…
Whoops, I am mixing topics again….
Yes, it wll be one-sided, but there will be a few who are of the opinion to stop UPC for the time being,and continue discussions once Britain has finally filed their article fifty notification or officially decided to stop the whole brexit discussion. But no discussion=no money for panel organisers. So IAM will continue holding panels. And advertise them. I just wishes they would try to attract a discussion starting from the other side.
E.g. “UPC is dead, what now?”
The discussion in situ may still go the old ways, but they would appear less biased.
Here we have Maarten Mooij of Nokia lying. It’s well established that the UPC would help patent trolls (they too know it!), yet this tweet said: “Maarten Mooij of Nokia doesn’t see a major change re NPE activity in Europe if UPC comes into force. Depends on case law though” (NPE is a euphemism for troll; Nokia itself helps patent trolls right now, as we last covered earlier in the week).
Jumping the gun again (as there's no UPC_, here is another UPC ‘genius’. “David Barron @GowlingWLG_UK: panel on SEP litigation in Europe, incl how it might play out in UPC (if)” (photograph in the tweet).
Nice propaganda event MIP has got going on for Battistelli in both France (his home country) and Germany (home of the EPO). Does all this lobbying pay well in attendance fees? Maybe favours in the long run? We don’t know for sure, but they’re now running a series of puff pieces with Battistelli. From the “litigation panel,” says this morning’s tweet, we have “Joachim Feldges @AllenOvery estimates there are about 100 SEP cases pending in Germany” (see what we wrote about SEP above).
That’s good for the patent litigation industry (patent law firms), no doubt about it. It’s also good for the patent mafia, firms like Sisvel that raid expos/events and confiscate (or steal) products “because patents!”
Is this the vision of Europe that we want? Where is the public in all this? What we have MIP presenting to us are very large corporations, their patent lawyers, and the EPO. Where are the rest of the European stakeholders? Maybe they cannot afford to pay over 1,000 Euros to attend a one-day event in which they cannot even speak (just listen). We wrote and complained about this a month ago.
Wise men and women are in the audience after all, but they’re paid to lie and promote the UPC. They can’t quite admit in public that the UPC is a sham. According to this: “In Munich for #EUPATENT16: no one in audience thinks that UK will ratify #UPC agreement”
Right…
Meanwhile in IP Kat Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows (major UPC boosters) tries to create some more false hopes that UPC will happen, piggypacking David Davis and manufacturing a misleading headline (“Does David Davis want to ratify the UPC Agreement?”). Read the sole comment there from Ellie Wilson. It says: “I noticed that at the Managing IP European Patent Forum this week Margot Frohlinger of the EPO has suggested that UK could either join UPC via a separate agreement or under Article 142 of the EPC.
“This is not really news – in terms of the massive uncertainty, or the need for external agreement if the UK is to participate at all – as much as it is perhaps interesting because of the source.
“Maybe, maybe it justifies having a bit of optimism, but, like Amerikat, I’m not holding my breath.”
“No one except [the EPO's] Fröhlinger,” Henrion joked about (almost religious) belief in the likelihood of UPC. Fröhlinger is bossed by Battistelli who does not tolerate dissent (he has already proven this with extreme actions).
So what’s all this charade about and why are they not just going on stage (not audience) to acknowledge this pessimism? EPO and Team UPC (mostly self-serving litigators) will likely rename and redo UPC, then try to implement it without the UK. Nym-shifting or eternal morphisms isn’t new for for UPC. It has had many names and identities over the years, dodging criticism all the time. Battistelli has been promoting this since well before it was known as “UPC”.
Speaking of Battistelli, do rumours of a UPC based in Paris with Battistelli as its head not far-fetched after all? The above event is in France too and this tweet says: “Caroline Casalonga of Casalonga leading session on getting evidence in patent litigation in France/UPC” (photograph therein).
Here is why we think a lot of this charade is very closely connected to the EPO, and MIP isn’t just commissioning or organising such an event for spontaneous desires. The EPO retweeted its Managing IP puff piece (interview with Battistelli) a very short time after it had been published (maybe minutes). It’s like they had the whole thing timed and coordinated all along. Did it work as planned, Battistelli et al? An intersection between the event and this puff piece? They are going to cover the ‘social’ [sic] nonsense of Battistelli in future part/s. More lies, more money and power for Battistelli. Will some of this money ‘trickle down’ to MIP? The EPO certainly launched a well-executed (if not so shallow) propaganda campaign so we shall do a reactionary anti-propaganda series of posts.
Regarding claims that AMBA’s views were ignored by MIP (while Battistelli continued to lie about the boards), MIP responded (via) to one who asked: “I heard also you interviewed amba. Will you be soon publishing it?”
“We haven’t interviewed AMBA yet,” MIP replied, “but have written to request an interview – watch this space.”
Well, perhaps they need to ask the EPO for permission. After all, reality check with AMBA might interfere with Battistelli’s interview (the already-published part 1 in particular).
For those who think that the EPO’s latest wave of propaganda involves only MIP, think again. A self-selecting survey (just ~600 people who are already inside the IAM cult) is being used to spread EPO propaganda about patent quality. They are relying on a very small and biased sample set (population), as any scientist with the faintest clue about statistics should be able to immediately tell. The editor in chief of IAM published this piece, not disclosing the very close if not incestuous relationship with the EPO. “In order to get a better idea of why the EPO does so well and the USPTO lags behind,” he wrote, “earlier this year we worked with Professor Colleen Chien of the Santa Clara University School of Law, and a former White House senior IP adviser, to develop a follow-up survey designed to drill deeper into our readership’s opinions of both offices. During June readers were emailed and invited to take part. We got approximately 650 responses. Below Colleen Chien summarises some of the main findings.”
With “approximately 650 responses” from people who are self-selecting, how legitimate is this bound to be? Also, they are not even sure how many people exactly have participated (notice the word “approximately”)? What kind of survey is uncertain about th size of the data? it’s just very easy to rig such things, e.g. to select who to E-mail and how often, in order to get the desired outcome, never mind loaded questions or push-polling. Remember that IAM has EPO money on its table, so will it risk delivering an output that’s not desirable to the Battistellites? We very much doubt that. By spreading a lot of money through PR agencies, the EPO has polluted a lot of news sites and metaphorically poisoned the well. IAM is not a legitimate source of information about the EPO and we are going to show that behind the scenes Battistelli uses this propaganda from IAM, and occasionally drops citations into letters to “media partners” (i.e. paid-for coverage) of the EPO in support of his ludicrous claims, just like the most dishonest politicians out there.
Going back to MIP, they don’t take our criticism too well. They offer so much “balance” that their STARS account blocked me in Twitter. They don’t like opposing views, do they? They blocked me in Twitter not because I abused them (I didn’t even talk to them!) but because I highlighted their bias by linking to things they said. They want invisibility. They just don’t want me to see what goes on in their UPC events. As I put it yesterday, “Managing IP is going to learn, just like IAM, that blocking someone from visibility is 1) ineffective 2) increases criticism 3) futile” (someone then added: “4) a mark for very poor journalistic performance”).
With advocacy of the antidemocratic UPC and a human rights violator, Battistelli of the EPO, we cannot assume that information from MIP can be taken without a grain of salt. Earlier today we showed how it published a “Sponsored Post”. That was last night! MIP is rapidly going down the bin, along with IAM (it too does sponsored posts)…
The timing of EPO propaganda is perfect because they try to push several objectives/talking points ahead of October’s meeting of the Council. They not only dump Battistelli lobbying on all Twitter followers but they are also still 'spamming' universities. Here are the latest 5 examples [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. They don’t quite realise how foolish it makes them look. They are wasting millions of Euros on this nonsense.
Regarding Battistelli’s “Social Conference”, one EPO insider sent us the following (to illustrate the attitude of staff towards Battistelli these days):
Dear Roy,
The mere thought of it makes me feel sick…
This is no joke: the EPO will organise in October a “Social Conference”. They dare! After having disciplined dozens of staff, fired staff representatives and union officials, downgraded others, put thousands under huge pressure, deny sickness to many, refuse promotion to pregnant women and soon (according to well placed insiders) stop granting social leave which are in the Codex with all sorts of “friendly advise” such as “think of your career….”.
The official EPO propaganda has it (quote verbatim):
“The conference will focus on all social-related aspects and will be based on the outcomes of the Financial Study, Social Study and OHSRA currently under finalisation. Themes to be discussed will be Social Dialogue, Financial sustainability and social package,
Well-being at the workplace, and Change management and readiness to change.
All interested stakeholders will be invited to participate: representatives from the Office’s management and staff, as well as members of the Staff Committees and recognized trade union, and delegates of the Administrative Council. To facilitate the discussions and interactions, general presentations by the consultants in charge of the studies will be followed by 8 to 12 thematic workshops.
The Social Conference will take place in Munich, Isar building, over the course of a full day on Tuesday 11 October. It is a unique opportunity for a wide range of participants to assess and discuss the challenges faced by our Organisation. If you wish to participate in the conference, please contact your line management by 14 September at the latest as places in the meeting rooms are limited.”
HERE THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 TECHNNOLOGIA OFFICE WIDE SURVEY (AFTER 2010, 2013 WITH THE SAME QUESTIONNAIRE)
https://suepo.org/documents/43311/54961.pdf
https://suepo.org/documents/43311/54951.pdf
So not only does the EPO ignore the Technologia survey (from a renowned French consulting which worked among many others on France Telecom’s debacle, the Renault Technopole one) but when they are about to sack Laurent Prunier, Central Staff Representative and SUEPO Official in TH (and perhaps others who too are in the death row, in particular in TH), they dare to write about “well-being at the workplace”.
Wicked!
Furthermore, to illustrate the attitude of staff towards Battistelli, one person has just come up with the following ode that spells out EULOGY:
E UREKA was the former in-house publication
U ncensored, informative and short of fabrication
L atest Gazette, lots of pictures of our Batters
O nce again Pravda style, credibility in tatters
G lorified half-truths, with a hand of sleight
Y es, only the obituaries seemed to be dead right
The “usual problem,” one person explained, is that “the EPO is not part of the EU…” (“…but a part of Hell!” added this remark about it). Here is a new comment from Tuesday. It too speaks about the structural deficiencies:
The AC has a clear conflict of interest, which under a different situation would be considered intolerable. But who cares about the EPO? It is a bit like putting the CEOs of Samsung, LG, Nokia etc. in the governing board of Apple. It is clear that this would not work to improve Apples success, and it is the same at the EPO.
The ILO does not respect the right to be heard, because she does not hold hearings even when they are requested, but this is apparently legally acceptable. Who cares?
I believe the drafters of the EPC were honest and upright men who could not envision that a generation would come after them who had a different moral standard.
The ILO is the only independent review employees of the EPO have when in dispute (the first two instances are internal and cannot be considered independent).
But hey, if you get paid a lot you should just accept being robbed of your rights…. so stop complaining, you are still not doing so bad. “We consulted you (according to the management of the EPO), even though the representatives did not agree to the changes requested, “so we can change your work contract, rules an regulations. WE only need to consult you, it is nowhere written that you have to agree for us to introduce changes which are detrimental to you”. In a national setting this would be unacceptable, and an employer would be taken to court. But not so with the EPO because the EPO has immunity.
But no immunity is absolute, and should never be, because absolute immunity corrupts.
We invite feedback and information regarding the EPO even through we already have plenty which we intend to publish soon. September is going to be a very busy month. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A programme wherein the EPO gives huge amounts of data, but only at a price
THE EPO has no shortage of scandals. We just have a shortage of time to cover them all. Privacy scandals alone are humongous and we mentioned violations that relate to medical data protection very recently and again two days ago.
One reader drew our attention to this new article from Switzerland (“Sur le Net, les entreprises se montrent trop naïves”). Translations would be very much appreciated, but we got the gist of it. “A Swiss based company named Centredoc bought back in 2015, 90 millions of data from the EPO,” one person told me a couple of times. “En Suisse, Centredoc a acheté, en 2015, les 90 millions de données de l’Office européen des brevets,” put in another language. “In general,” this person added, “they talk about storage of sensible information related to patents” (sounds familiar).
I asked, “does it say what data? Could use a detailed summary…”
In general, we kindly ask readers to become familiar with the following articles (published around last Christmas, so not many people paid attention):
- Jacques Michel (Former EPO VP1), Benoît Battistelli’s EPO, and the Leak of Internal Staff Data to Michel’s Private Venture
- Europatis: “Turnover of €211,800 and Zero Employees”
- Loose Data ‘Protection’ and Likely Privacy Infringements at the EPO: Here’s Who Gets Employees’ Internal Data
- Summary of the EPO-Europatis Series
- Revolving Doors of High-Level EPO Management: Jacques Michel and the Questel Deal With the EPO
“Suffice to say, this favours deep-pocketed companies and countries like Switzerland.”Having asked for additional information about this article from Le Matin Online, we got told that the “EPO sells Patent Data” and received a copy of anonymised communication (with hypos corrected), namely:
Dear *****,
The EPO sells the data to data providers on a marginal cost basis. We have big hosts, SMEs and natural persons as customers. The EPO encourages the use of the data and is happy about an active patent information market. The strategy was not on exclusivity … AND I think that this right.
You can find the various products in the EPO price list: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/0B52985F1EFEBCBBC12574EC00263E07/$File/epo_patent_information_price-list_08_2016.pdf
Most probably the mentioning is about the mother of the databases: DOCDB
Please contact if you want to know more about this….
Best regards
******
Suffice to say, this favours deep-pocketed companies and countries like Switzerland. What ever happened to patent neutrality? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 8:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Maybe they can do some ‘knowledge transfer’ regarding purges
Summary: Benoît Battistelli keeps scraping the bottom of the barrel by meeting with notorious tyrants and leaders from nations which have virtually nothing to do with the EPO (no patents)
YESTERDAY the EPO reinforced our observation that Battistelli has turned the EPO into something that nobody wishes to be associated with, not even in the world of politics. The exceptions are typically tyrants or politicians from notorious countries that have virtually no European Patents (e.g. in Latin America).
“One can judge an Office and a President based on the company s/he keeps…”From the country best known for Pol Pot (studied in Paris, just like Battistelli) and French colonisation we now have this new Battistelli charade [caution: EPO can probably track clicks on this]. It’s almost as if people from respected nations don’t want to be seen with Battistelli (not anymore), so he races to the bottom for photo ops. Can someone from the EPO (or from patent agents) please check for us how many European Patents exist in the database from Cambodia? According to the EPO’s media people, “EPO President Benoît Battistelli hosted the delegation, which was led by Senior Minister Cham Prasidh, Minister of Industry and Handicraft, and also included Cambodia’s Ambassador to Germany, Thai Chun.”
We look forward to Battistelli’s IP talks with Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Libya. One can judge an Office and a President based on the company s/he keeps… █
Update: it has meanwhile come to our attention that the number of European Patents from Cambodia is 0. Yes, zero! Well done, Battistelli.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.06.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Time and space virtually ‘rented out’ to EPO management (another IAM-like propaganda mill in the making)
Summary: Managing IP reinforces the view or the perception that when it comes to the European Patent Office (EPO) it’s only a little better than an external PR department
THE EPO is wasting over a million Euros per year on spurious PR like pro-UPC events in another continent. There is also a lot of hogwash now that the EPO expels the independent judges or the boards they’re part of. Shortly after Battistelli was demolishing the boards and putting lipstick on the pig (see our translation of the hogwash) James Nurton is again, having done a softball ‘interview’ with Battistelli earlier this year in order to help him cover up/whitewash amid peak of a crisis (boiling point), jumping to his rescue. There is this new ‘Managing IP’ (MIP) nonsense titled “EPO President Battistelli on appeals reforms”. Why not just reprint a prepared (by the EPO’s PR team) ghostwritten piece? They frame this as an interview, but any fool can see what it really is. It’s supposedly behind a paywall (“$/trial,” as they put it in Twitter less than an hour ago), so the choir gets preferential access to the lies, the rest will find it harder to rebut (let alone see). This is a common tactic when suppressing criticism. The same goes for attendance at events where dissent is being discouraged/disallowed (e.g. by limiting who can speak and charging a furtune to attend, with exceptions/discounts to ‘desirable’ guests).
“…James Nurton is again, having done a softball ‘interview’ with Battistelli earlier this year in order to help him cover up/whitewash amid peak of a crisis (boiling point), jumping to his rescue.”What on Earth is happening to MIP? It’s even a multi-part Battistelli series, clearly prepared in advance to be released in conjunction with today’s UPC advocacy event. “This is the first of a two-part article,” Nurton wrote. “A further interview with Battistelli, on the social situation at the Office, will be published later this month.”
So, basically, they are planning to publish complete and utter lies like those we explained under an hour ago (the so-called 'social conference' and social report/study).
Shame on MIP. They’re not journalists, they’re actually Battistelli’s propagandists now. Some EPO staff is attending (not willfully) their UPC event, which they have advertised as follows: “Our #EUPatent16 forums take place this week in Munich (Tuesday) & Paris (Thursday) incl. panels on #UPC, #UnitaryPatent, #Brexit & #Frand”
This is a UPC promotion event. Make no mistake about it. Look who has speaking positions. It was mentioned here before, not just a month ago but also days ago. Hastags like #Brexit #EUPatent16 #UPC and #UnitaryPatent are being used by MIP to promote this and even #Frand (yes, the anti-FOSS, pro-software patents Trojan horse!)
“Come on,” they told me this morning. “We’re not in the business of promoting #UPC or #Unitarypatent – just providing a platform for discussion!”
“This is a UPC promotion event.”Yeah, right…
Another ‘conference’ brought to you by EPO, sort of…
“I can say very much the same,” said someone about the EPO a short while ago. “Management is loyal only to hidden agendas, power and weak moral.”
The problem is, MIP agreed to do the EPO management’s work. This shows that their integrity is flaky to say the least. They also profit from this event (over a thousand Euros for each person to attend a one-day event, assuming standard charges).
“I know you claim to have a neutral position,” I replied to them, “but the speakers’ lineup will likely omit any opponents,” as usual.
“They also profit from this event (over a thousand Euros for each person to attend a one-day event, assuming standard charges).”Well, perhaps foreseeing a backlash for licking Battistelli’s boot, MIP wrote to me this morning, hours before the puff piece and around the time the aforementioned event started.
“Disagree,” they added. “Based on our previous events, we expect a full range of views from speakers & audience. You should come to one!”
I replied with “€1095 for a one-day event about the #upc (plus plane tickets) [is] well beyond my means. Event for the rich to preach to the rich.”
“Our events are free for in-house counsel, academics & R&D professionals,” they replied. “Come next year as our guest!”
“We are very sad to see MIP becoming a lot more like IAM, which is the propaganda mill of Battistelli, still.”Well, being a guest at an event with thugs like Team Battistelli (and their bodyguards) doesn’t sound all that safe and besides, the place will be stuffed/stacked with pro-UPC people. It’s like entering the lion’s den.
We are very sad to see MIP becoming a lot more like IAM, which is the propaganda mill of Battistelli, still.
As an aside, the EPO’s PR people have been 'spamming' universities even today (this morning onwards). They don’t publicly mention or endorse MIP’s event, but it’s clear that they’re very much embedded in it. It’s not at all hard for outsiders to see. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Big lies from a chronic liar [1, 2]
Source (original): Rospatent
Summary: Battistelli is attempting to purchase (i.e. pay for, at the EPO’s expense) an alternate reality wherein EPO staff is absolutely delighted and the social climate is fantastic — all this for the purpose of evading accountability for his systematic abuses that left him with 0% approval rate (literally!), suicidal/depressed staff, and notable brain drain as well as considerable decline in the quality of work [1, 2]
EARLIER this year and last week we mentioned the so-called ‘social conference’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which relates to the social study [sic] commissioned by the liar (Battistelli) and his goons, relying on gross omissions and hired propaganda mills. Battistelli, being a politician, would go as far as necessary to protect his horrible regime, even if that means lying and insulting people’s intelligence.
Next month, at a very strategic time (no coincidence there), the EPO will release Battistelli’s massive and expensive propaganda, unleashing a large bundle of lies to justify not bringing up union-busting and violations of the law in the Administrative Council’s (AC) meeting. Wait and watch. Team Battistelli will continue to shamelessly rubbish justice and try to cover it up with a large bundle of lies, as usual.
The following new comment on the subject is quite revealing:
the stated purpose of the social conference is:
- presenting the results of the occupational health and safety risk assessment (ohsra) and the social study
- forming working groups to discuss these results
- work shops (by now these two points will be done on the same day as the presentations)
- expected results of the working groups and the workshops are
-_- an analysis how the previous reforms influenced the results of the social study and the ohsra
-_- suggestions how the previous reforms need to be amended to restore social climate, of course without an impact on the results of these reforms (so continued abolishment of steps and career, lower salaries, increased work pressure, less secure pensions for newcomers, …)
Both results will be presented to the AC, together with an analysis of the administration of these results, as well as an opinion on the studies by the administration.
How can the administration coordinate the working grouos, and work on their own analysis, as well as waiting for the results and form an opinion on that all on the same day, without most of all that already pre-written?
I bet they even prepared an analysis to be presented by the staff representative groups (FFPE, and the official Staff Representation)
I also wonder how they expect Staff Representation as well as FFPE to be able to actively particiate in all areas, when they do the working groups all at the same time, and will not allow sufficient “experts” to participate; no chance to discuss among themselves, and still deliver opinions on the same day which will be seen as representative of “all staff” if favourable for management, or “dissenting opinions of disgruntled single individuals” (a.k.a. violent and vocal minority) when not in favour of previous and future management actions.
I expect this whole exercise to deliver even more pre-cooked management “Bullshit-Bingo” catchwords without content, but used as justification to push the border of our legal issues even further….
We have loads of new material regarding the EPO. A lot of it will have been published before the so-called ‘social conference’ and we expect some press coverage to that effect, scrutinising the Battistelli regime in some form ahead of the next AC meeting. Dirty laundry will help convince delegates and journalists that everything Battistelli and his yellow ‘union’ say can be disregarded. For those who forgot what FFPE stands for, here is a reminder of past articles:
- In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
- Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
- “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
- Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
- The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
- Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
- Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
- FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
- Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
- Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
- On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
- Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
- In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election
- FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
Sheer propaganda “is good enough for political operators such as BB [Battistelli],” says the following new comment:
Thanks for the explanation. It seems that we have yet another example of a classic BB strategy, namely “consultation” in the form of allowing others to speak but having no intention of listening to them (let alone taking heed of anything that is said).
Of course, this strategy has nothing to do with the dictionary (or commonly understood) definition of “consultation”, but is good enough for political operators such as BB.
Quite frankly, the whole charade is just an insult to the intelligence of the staff representatives and all neutral observers. Not that this will stop the AC swallowing the results hook, line and sinker. What a debacle!
In another thread, one regarding privacy, the EPO's privacy violations (including medical data protection) are brought up again, noting that “patent processing at the EPO is not in compliance with EU standards for data protection.”
Here is the comment in full:
A patent is worth a lot of money.
Personal data are the bibliographic data, payment method, communication with the EPO but also the application (claims/description).
It is incredible that the patent processing at the EPO is not in compliance with EU standards for data protection.
Coming up soon are more articles about data protection abuses, the race to the bottom at the EPO, union-busting activities and highly negative social atmosphere at the Office. We urge readers to relay information about those things to both journalists and delegates as Battistelli prepares to lie to them in a big way. They need to be properly informed in order to counter his claims. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.05.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s not just about Bergot but about an Office-wide trend
Summary: The above job ad (less than a week old) serves to reinforce suspicions that the EPO under Battistelli is a house of cards where people are treated like dirt
THE EXODUS of EPO staff may or may not be the cause of the above job ad. Regardless of the cause (Battistelli too looked for an assistant/secretary not too long ago), worth noting from the above (see original URL) is that it’s contract work (as usual), filed under “Temporary appointments”.
This relates to an aspect we shall cover another day, namely that the career system is being abolished, gradually, in favour of short-term contracts with little or no benefits. This is a very significant change, not only to insiders, as we shall explain (with supporting facts) some day in the future. Work experience and seniority don’t seem to be concepts that Battistelli is able to grasp. ENA is, perhaps, not a valuable institution for education after all…
“Work experience and seniority don’t seem to be concepts that Battistelli is able to grasp.”“Vacant position at the EPO,” told us one reader about the above, “Assistant/secretary for PD 4.3 (secretary of Ms. Bergot).”
For those who are not familiar with Bergot, recall this long series [1, 2, 3, 4] about her, her husband, and Battistelli. It’s one of the best (or most obvious) examples of nepotism and favouritism under Battistelli.
“I think that this deserves some attention,” told us the reader. “Would be funny if it wasn’t so sad! A premiere in EPO history: according to my information NO ONE in intern to candidate for the vacant position of secretary of Mrs Bergot …..aouch! So much for the “social conference” and well-being at workplace…”
“It’s one of the best (or most obvious) examples of nepotism and favouritism under Battistelli.”Apparently Battistelli isn’t quite so interested in the current staff. Maybe he can just find/fish some people out in the streets to undertake the complex task of examining patents in specialised fields? What a disaster!
“And please do not laugh,” our reader added, “also for an external candidate they demand realistic things: ‘Une bonne connaissance des processus et des procédures de l’OEB serait un avantage.’” (a good knowledge of the EPO procedure would be considered an advantage)
Our reader joked: “Do you think that I should apply? I’m more than confident that I would be the perfect candidate for this vacant position.”
Well, people who know enough about the EPO (and have some wit) won’t bother applying, judging by how staff gets treated even if/when not working directly for Bergot.
“With her own bodyguards (reportedly two of them), she has proven that Battistelli’s paranoia is infectious, not just hugely expensive (with no tender).”From the page of the ad: “Experience with Babylon, Common Log and MS SharePoint would be an asset” and “Very good knowledge of the MS Office suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) and Lotus Notes (repositories)” (again the Microsoft-EPO connection).
Maybe they should just hire directly from Microsoft then. Recall the following older articles of ours:
As an aside, Bergot is totally incompetent for her own job (she didn’t have to endure gruesome interviews to get offered her high position). We occasionally hear all sorts of private stories about her and these are sometimes hilarious if not embarrassing. With her own bodyguards (reportedly two of them), she has proven that Battistelli's paranoia is infectious, not just hugely expensive (with no tender). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.04.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…Just saying there’s hope cannot in its own right make it happen
Summary: A UPC-centric event is planned for this week, but the matter of fact is, the likelihood of the UPC ever becoming a reality (in any shape or form) is low and chances of passing it as-is are extremely slim
LATER this month the EPO will promote software patents (disguised as “ICT”) in the US, as we last noted here yesterday. Starting Tuesday, moreover, there will be a pro-UPC event. This was covered a month ago by MIP and recalled in Twitter, where MIP has said: “Join us for #UPC, #UnitaryPatent & #Brexit patent discussions in Munich & Paris on September 6 & 8 – new blog post” (no longer new).
Well, Brexit effectively axed the UPC (without the UK’s participation it’s back to the drawing board), but some try to prop it up anyway, especially Team UPC. The “Future of UPC [is] in limbo,” says the headline of this new article (screenshot above) from a patent maximalism site, Intellectual Property Magazine. As we explained here before (especially back in July), the UPC is effectively dead, if not on the ice for several years to come. The article above is behind a paywall, but here is the publicly-accessible part: [via]
When it comes to the future of the unitary patent, the only thing that is known for certain is that nothing is certain. The vote by the UK to leave the European Union has created significant uncertainty around the future viability and implementation of both the unitary patent (European patent with unitary effect or EPUE) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
While a final date for implementation of the unitary patent and UPC had not been set, delivery of these two landmark arrangements was on the home straight. After over 40 years in the making, the UK’s so-called ‘Brexit’ vote threatens to at best delay and at worst derail any chances of the unitary patent and UPC coming into force. So what are the prospects for their continued
“Another positive of the status quo is that the fragmentation of the EU litigation system may also have hindered trolls,” Benjamin Henrion wrote earlier today. He is right. We already covered the trolls angle of the UPC many times before. So did some authors like Dr. Glyn Moody. It’s not a theory or some mere hypothesis; it’s a fact. The UPC is a threat to the EPO itself, as we explained a couple of days ago.
The summary of the above article says: “While the fate of the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent remains undecided, what planning should in-house counsel do in the interim?”
“The UPC is a threat to the EPO itself, as we explained a couple of days ago.”Well, they can carry on as usual and stop wasting time, money and effort trying to usher in what will never happen. The UPC in its previous incarnation is nearly a decade old and it never got close to happening, in spite of all the lobbying and propaganda from the likes of Michel Barnier and Charlie McCreevy. Battistelli himself has lobbied for the UPC for a very long time and now he spends a fortune (at the expense of the EPO) doing these political stunts, presumably to get himself a top UPC position somewhere like Paris, France (based on rumours alone). The EPO even pays to have pro-UPC events in the US (home of the USPTO which is another territory altogether, where US giants pursue far more patents than they bother pursuing in Europe). The angle we typically look for with these events, as was the case in CeBIT and another upcoming US event, is software patents, or what they nowadays call “ICT” as a weasel word. We are also interested in how much money is spent on such events (a lot seems to have been wasted in Canada, as we noted last night). There is a lot of nefarious stuff going on there. For instance, a pro-UPC event in the US was organised with FTI Consulting money (the EPO pays it over a million Euros) sent to IAM, and EPO as the main/sole supporter of the event. How ridiculous is this? Remember that IAM also pretends to be covering news while producing material for the EPO like a propaganda mill.
“Battistelli’s attacks on SUEPO are extremely revealing.”Speaking of propaganda mills, the EPO just can’t help embarrassing itself by 'spamming' universities (at 5:20 AM on a Saturday in this one particular case!). Here is the latest example, about the thirtieth by our count. They are probably running out of European universities to ‘spam’ at this stage, thus choosing smaller and more obscure ones.
What the heck has happened to the EPO I used to respect and send letters to (for constructive thoughts, e.g. regarding patent scope)? My close friend, a university professor who pursued many EPO patents over the years (and got them), has already grown tired of the EPO’s declining quality/status and in his capacity as a head of research department he is now speaking to the university’s administration about reconsideration of their relations with the EPO.
Under Battistelli the EPO truly goes down the drain and unless staff of the EPO is able to put an end to this death spiral there won’t be jobs left for anyone. That would definitely harm Europe and Battistelli can go back to politics (where he came from) if something hits the fan. He’s well beyond retirement age anyway (same as Willy Minnoye, who some people recently thought was leaving).
Just because Battistelli sticks/attaches an “EPO” logo (button) to his lapel doesn’t mean he’s loyal to the EPO. I personally feel a lot more loyal to the EPO than Battistelli has ever been (he is totally clueless about patents and demonstrably averse to science). SUEPO is hardcore loyal to the EPO, and passionate about it too. Battistelli’s attacks on SUEPO are extremely revealing. These attacks have been broadened recently. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.03.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
People are leaving the Office a lot faster than the EPO is able to hire replacements
Summary: A report from Canada about the EPO’s oddly-placed booth, whose whole purpose seems to be attracting interest in another continent
THE EPO (see Wiki for background) is burning money or flushing money down the toilet. Insiders worry about it and talk about it. Why aren’t officials or even delegates talking about the unprecedented waste of money? When millions of Euros are wasted on just a few hours of lobbying something is just seriously wrong.
Some time ago we learned about an event held at a congress centre. “The exhibition was reserved to previously registered conference participants,” someone told us, “with something like a £600 fee.” This is quite typical when it comes to such events, where only relatively affluent people are allowed, or people who work for large companies that foot the bill or are partners with the events (e.g. sponsorship). “There was another “cheaper” option (about £175) which was no longer available,” we got told.
“Why aren’t officials or even delegates talking about the unprecedented waste of money?”“Day 1 was open to the general public,” we learned, and “it might have been interesting to go there. Even though I think electric cars are a terrible idea, it would still have interested me to have a good look at that environment.”
Indeed, as it turned out, “exhibitors received a contingent of passes,” which means that EPO staff could probably get in.
Shown above is what was available even for those denied entry (too expensive). “The interesting thing,” we got told, “is that the EPO had a FULL PAGE ad. There were only three of these in the whole brochure: one from the Québec government, the top sponsor, one for the public power utility, which is really an arm of the Québec government, and the EPO. That’s strange, as the EPO isn’t even listed as a sponsor. Two actual sponsors (Nissan and Volkswagen) only had half-page ads, and all the few other ones were quarter-page or even smaller. Obviously quite a bit of money was squandered on this. This is an angle [worth exploring], together with, why should a public authority peddle monopolies like kings did centuries ago?”
“Indeed, as it turned out, “exhibitors received a contingent of passes,” which means that EPO staff could probably get in.”Remember that the EPO is, indeed, a de facto monopoly in Europe. There is no competing office other than NPOs (that are serving a different purpose anyway). “According to the floor map, the EPO booth however was smallish,” we were told. “The EPO web site appears to indicate this was foreseen as a recruiting event, but this must be an instance of bad timing, as there are currently no openings for scientists and engineers.”
Well, that was then. Right now the EPO is very desperate for applicants/applications as staff is fleeing (more on that to be published soon).
“There was a paper presented by one Gilles Schmitt,” we were told, “who appears to be a more junior examiner. One person of the same name is mentioned in two electric-vehicle related patent applications from 2007, so if this is the same person, he couldn’t have been there for more than 10 years. He couldn’t be a director with that seniority, unless he was very eager.”
“The interesting thing is that the EPO had a FULL PAGE ad.”
–AnonymousThe title of his talk: “Patents and progress; intellectual property showing the future of electric vehicles” (a subject which is sometimes being pushed for marketing purposes in Twitter).
That whole charade took place quite some time back and in the mean time we saw this tweet from CIPA being promoted by the EPO (see below). █
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