11.23.15

HeBS Digital and Black Duck Press Releases Treated Like Articles, Used to Muddy the FOSS Waters

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft at 6:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“A man never lies as much as after a hunt, during a war, and before an election.”

–Otto von Bismarck

Summary: Free/Open Source software (FOSS) is under attack again, and it’s the proprietary software lobby that’s responsible for that

EVERY now and then we see claims that Free software is very dangerous because of licensing obligations, as if proprietary software comes with no licensing obligations and potentially severe fines (if not a jail term!). We also occasionally hear about Free software being dangerous on the security side, despite proprietary software being far worse, merely hiding flaws and rarely patching them (or patching them when it’s too late). Several Web sites published this biased ‘analysis’ composed by two proprietary software ‘sales’ people (HeBS Digital’s Max Starkov and Jaan Paljasma) only a few days ago. They rely on non-technical people actually believing that there are no downsides to proprietary software. It should also be noted that, while several sites distribute this ‘article’ as though it’s an original report, it is actually more like a press release commissioned by a stakeholder. It’s not journalism and some sites fail to flag it accordingly.

In my professional capacity I have built sites using FOSS content management systems (e.g. Drupal, WordPress) for commerce, education, and more. These frameworks are so flexible and so full of modules/plug-ins that virtually everything is possible. Not even once have such sites been compromised due to security bugs (even when some existed and remained unpatched for a while).

“It should also be noted that, while several sites distribute this ‘article’ as though it’s an original report, it is actually more like a press release commissioned by a stakeholder.”Speaking of proprietary software salespeople, the Microsoft-connected Black Duck is at it again. “The study’s findings also highlighted a number of other specific ways the adoption of appropriate internal controls has not kept pace with the increasing use of open source software, leaving many organizations exposed to significant potential risks,” wrote a lawyers’ site, based on this self-promotional press release from Black Duck.

“As highlighted in the Information Week blog DARKReading,” the lawyers’ site said, actually referring to a press release, not a blog. We shall guess that it takes more than average levels of intelligence to distinguish blog posts from press releases. We can also safely assume that Black Duck hasn’t changed its ways. It’s a de facto FUD firm which uses scare tactics for sales of its proprietary software (with software patents on it).

Speaking of Black Duck, distrust its figures or statistics regarding software licences because by taking tiny JavaScript bits of code (typically MIT-licensed) and treating these as equal to large GPL-licensed programs they’ll have us believe that copyleft-type licences are dying. They are comparing apples and oranges, but then again, that’s the art of misleading with so-called statistics. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO President Battistelli Now Intimidates Even National Delegations

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Someone has just gone Battis* insane

Summary: Report about an embarrassing incident implicating Benoît Battistelli and some angry comments cast over the witch-hunting of a judge, using all sorts of questionable tactics

THE EPO long ago lost the respect it once had. It is not the fault of patent examiners but the fault of the management, which is now abusing lawyers and threatening politicians because they increasingly get the courage to stand up to them. The reign of terror is no longer directed only inwards but also outwards. Even external entities are being bullied by the EPO’s management. How on Earth is this even possible, especially coming from a public body (not private)? Immunity on steroids has turned the EPO into some kind of Mafia at the very heart of Germany, not far from the Italian border.

“The reign of terror is no longer directed only inwards but also outwards. Even external entities are being bullied by the EPO’s management.”This audio of Battistelli was recorded at a meeting with delegations of the Administrative Council last year. The arrogance of this man and his bad policies were so outrageous that people who attended decided to leak this audio. Some people were appalled by all that. Well, maybe they should start bringing cameras too, considering today’s story.

The story is not entirely new, but we have not mentioned this before. It was mentioned (at least in part) by one of the commenters in IP Kat and we managed to get hold of the fuller story which relates to this:

Mr Battistelli’s social diplomacy

For years the Member States let Mr Battistelli reign over the EPO with little – if any – supervision of the way the Office was being run. In June 2014 they even supported the prolongation of his term of office for 3 more years from July 2015 at a time when the social situation was already very tense and there were clear signs of a drift towards an authoritarian regime at the EPO. It seemed that nothing – not even the judgment of the Appeal Court of The Hague against the Organisation in February 2015 nor the occurrence of five suicides in 39 months – seemed capable of awaking the Administrative Council (AC) from its complacent lethargy. There are signs that this may be changing. Several questions and criticisms from delegations (BFC delegations are manned by roughly the same people as the AC delegations) during the last meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) on 22 and 23 October in Munich showed that Mr Battistelli no longer enjoys the full confidence of several delegations.

“After the meeting had concluded he went in turn to the French and Norwegian delegations whom he fiercely rebuked for their respective actions and in such an overbearing manner that it caused visible emotional distress to a member of the French delegation. These incidents took place in full view of the other (speechless) delegations.”Dealing with opinions that diverge from his own is not one of Mr Battistelli’s main strengths. During the BFC meeting a critical comment from the Norwegian delegation concerning the inappropriate lack of information provided to the BFC for making informed decisions, and the voting pattern of the French delegation (abstention on the 2016 EPO budget, vote against the President’s proposal on the tax adjustment for pensioners) triggered instant and brusque responses from the President. But Mr Battistelli went even further. After the meeting had concluded he went in turn to the French and Norwegian delegations whom he fiercely rebuked for their respective actions and in such an overbearing manner that it caused visible emotional distress to a member of the French delegation. These incidents took place in full view of the other (speechless) delegations.

Can the Member States afford to tolerate such incidents involving the public humiliation of their delegates without the AC risking a serious loss of credibility as the governing body of our organisation (not to mention the duty of care they owe to the national delegates sitting in the BFC/AC)? Only time will tell…

Bullying such as this is often a sign of insecurity. It’s really self-explanatory a deed.

As an aside, the Administrative Council (AC) has been using — possible in vain — the “EPO” name in order to go after the boards, based on this recently-'leaked' PDF. Using improper (from a legal standing) requests didn’t work out too well because the document got released to the public and people wrote harsh comments, such as:

In the nut shell, the EBA tells the AC that their request is inadmissible due to that it is legaly flawed. Also the decision of the DC appointed by the AC is equally legaly flawed. Thus, manifestly apparently, collectively the AC has miserably failed in its duty of care towards the member of the BOA by subjecting him to legaly flawed disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, collectively the AC has miserably failed the EPO and the European public by failing to calrify serious accusation of misconduct by a member of the BOA. Moreover, with the big help of the president and vice-presidents any further prosecution of this case has been seriously prejudist by publicising the details of the case in newspapers, and the AC did not manage to prevent this. Hence, the AC is not controling the stuation but rather it controlls them.

I do not see how there is anything els for the AC left to do, other than collectively resign at the next meeting in Decemebr.

“Asking a judicial body to tell the claimant what he should do in order to win his case is simply flabbergasting. Being faced by the non-admissibility of its request, wanting to reopen the discussion on admissibility is plainly laughable.”They can then appoint BB as a temporary adminsitrator of the duties of the AC in lue of them. Then BB can swiftly investigate himself, in accordance with the EPC, in regard of the outageous charges of institutional abuse of the union, appoint a DC and win the case.

[...]

The perhaps most extraordinary element in the decision comes early, namely its cover page, where it is indicated that the Administrative Council’s representative actually was … the EPO! What a mess.

[...]

What is extremely worrying is that this bunch of people, the AC and the president are presiding over the fate of a major institution in the world of IP. It is frightening to see the level of self satisfaction this people exude…. In a private company they would have been fired yesterday rather than today.

Asking a judicial body to tell the claimant what he should do in order to win his case is simply flabbergasting. Being faced by the non-admissibility of its request, wanting to reopen the discussion on admissibility is plainly laughable. Amateurism at his best….

On the other hand, it is not uncommon that in case of internal complaints it is not infrequent to amend the rules and their interpretation during the procedure, so as to insure that a decision adverse to a complainant is the necessary result of the procedure.

“Control Risk should be banned from the EPO, this group contributed to the present situation.”It is interesting also to note that the “petitioner” did not hesitate to invoke German law, as VP 5 did recently. How can it be that in some cases national law is or should be fully applicable, and in other cases, cf. decision of the Dutch court it is not? I hope that VP5 in his great wisdom and intelligence will issue a communiqué explaining the varying applicability of national legislation.

What kind of counsellors this people have? On the other hand, looking at what VP5 has recently let out, there is no wonder that it ended up in a fiasco.

One can only be sad when looking what those pseudo managers/lawyers have made out of a well working and reputed institution. If the hidden agenda of the president was to let the EPO to go into the wall, he is very near to have achieved his aim.

[...]

The conclusion of this decision are the following:

The DC and the President were unable to present verifiable facts and substantiate the allegations made about the DG3 member.
Accordingly, the house ban on December 5th 2014 was not justified and has to be considered as an abuse of power by the President.
The President fooled the entire AC who agreed unanimously with the President’s proposal.
The press releases in the Financieel Dagblad and other papers seriously damaged the reputation of the EPO, for which the President and some VPs are responsible.
The EPC should be amended to limit the power of any President in order to prevent any such abuse of power in future.
The AC should lift the immunity of the President and the VPs for proper justice to be executable w.r.t. libel suits and damage done to EPO staff.
Control Risk should be banned from the EPO, this group contributed to the present situation.
The president of the AC (JK) should step down because of his failure to properly supervise the whole process.

[...]

The EBA shall be praised for defending due process.
The proceedings against the suspended member have exposed the manner in which BB has being operating since introduction of Circular 342.

All he needs to do is select an “irksome” staff member, give instructions to the IU and sit back and watch.
The IU fabricates allegations on a “made to measure” basis, passes these on to a disciplinary committee for rubber-stamping and there you go …
In the rare case where disciplinary committee might dare to voice “dissenting opinion”, BB simply ignore it secure in the knowledge that when the ILOAT deals with the case in the distance future he will be long retired in his villa on Corsica or wherever …

He tries to pull the same stroke with the suspended board member and expects that everything will run as smoothly as in other cases …
It now looks like he miscalculated big time …

Kudos to the EBA for refusal to fullfill the role of a rubber-stamper assigned to it by BB.

We can be grateful that miscalculation on the part of BB has finally exposed rotten system that was introduced on his watch with the tacit approval of the AC.

[...]

I think that the AC representative asked what they had to submit because they got surprised by the decision and had no clue how to go on…

Whatever reason, I think that just by putting the question, the AC representative touched the deepest point of the well…

“Dear Chairman, could you please be so kind to tell us how can we prove that Mr XCVV is guilty?”

Come on that sounds really like a joke…

In the coming week we are going to show that not only the judge has been subjected to this kind of treatment. More and more people, inside and outside the EPO, are quickly finding out that what they’re dealing with is more like a bunch of gangsters, not public servants. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

A Look at the Latest Gross Deletionism at the EPO’s ‘Media Partner’, French Newspaper Les Échos

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A followup article about censorship at Les Échos, complete with new information about its latest censorship and its odious EPO ties

The article on Thursday (with the following text)

The article soon thereafter (after all the above got silently deleted)

Summary: The EPO’s bogus ‘journal of record, which Team Battistelli likes to cite in order to bolster its warped version of events at the EPO while maintaining a close secret relationship with the publisher, keeps censoring its own reporters (spiked paragraphs, silently self-censored or censored after publications)

TECHRIGHTS was never a big fan of corporate media, even well before the EPO scandals. Ever since the Novell days we have seen systematic abuse in such media, which seems to care more about what brings income (e.g. advertisements) than what informs readers. History is being rewritten (revisionism) in the interests of various sponsors or potential sponsors.

“This really necessitated further investigation and we decided to do a followup story in order to show just how much of a farce Les Échos can be.”Les Échos was mentioned here a few days ago after it had censored itself once again (it previously censored paragraphs critical of the EPO). Not many people know this, not even those who watch the EPO closely. This really necessitated further investigation and we decided to do a followup story in order to show just how much of a farce Les Échos can be. We patiently waited for more information before that; we got several messages about that and found some feedback on the Web rather helpful.

In the excerpt below we highlight added text and deleted text. We are still waiting for a translation of the part about the EPO.

Accueil > Dossiers thema > Transformation : mettre de l’agilité dans son organisation

Transformation : les «ennemis» de l’intérieur

Julie Le Bolzer | Le 19/11 à 11:39

Collaborateurs, syndicats et même patrons sont parfois si réfractaires au changement que le processus de transformation de l’entreprise s’en trouve contrarié. Les exemples de l’Office européen des brevets (OEB), Air France et KLM et de PSA.

[...]

PSA : le directoire jugé inefficace par les actionnaires

C’est une déflagration lorsque la tête de Philippe Varin, numéro un du groupe PSA, tombe le 24 novembre 2013. Annoncée, la veille, au comité de direction générale, la décision est sans appel. Et c’est Carlos Tavares qui est nommé au directoire. Qu’est-ce qui, au juste, était reproché au dirigeant et justifiait que la famille Peugeot aille recruter chez le concurrent direct, causant un transfert inédit, à ce niveau, entre PSA et Renault ? Qu’est-ce qui a, subitement, conduit Philippe Varin vers la sortie de route alors que son mandat avait été renouvelé six mois plus tôt ? Qu’est-ce qui a précipité le lancement, par les Peugeot, du processus de recrutement de Carlos Tavares, sans prendre la peine d’en informer l’ensemble des membres du conseil de surveillance (ni même l’État, pourtant impliqué dans le dossier après avoir accordé une garantie à la filiale bancaire de PSA) ?

Ce désaveu reflète une crise de confiance entre la famille actionnaire et le directoire. Surtout, les chantiers de restructuration menés en Europe (accord de compétitivité, fermeture de l’usine d’Aulnay-sous-Bois…) n’ont pas été jugés suffisants en regard des ambitions de transformation du groupe. Depuis le départ de Philippe Varin, la transformation de PSA s’est accélérée. Baptisé « Back in the Race » (de retour dans la course), le plan stratégique 2014-2018, présenté par Carlos Tavares en avril 2014, entend assurer le redressement de l’entreprise. Les objectifs opérationnels ? Faire de DS, Peugeot et Citroën, des marques reconnues mondialement ; rationaliser les gammes via un plan mondial concentré ; atteindre une croissance mondiale rentable à l’international ; et se moderniser pour faire face aux enjeux de compétitivité. C’est une transformation culturelle de l’entreprise qui est visée. Une conduite du changement que n’avait visiblement pas su opérer Philippe Varin.

We don’t know if Julie Le Bolzer or her editor removed it. We also don’t know why. All we know is, when you read something on this ‘news’ paper, be sure to make a snapshot because entire chunks of articles can magically vanish without prior notice. We also know, based on experience, that criticism of the EPO is not permitted there. History is being recorded selectively, and there is a monopoly on media coverage. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

11.22.15

Rumour About Efforts to Dismiss a Board Judge by Intimidating Boards of Appeal

Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 6:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

But did Jesper Kongstad actually do it? We need evidence if any exists.

Jesper Kongstad. Photo from the Nordic Patent Institute.

Summary: Comment found online accuses the Administrative Council of pressuring, by threats, Directorate-General 3 to dismiss a judge who is silently accused (with selective ‘leaks’ to the media, reportedly orchestrated by EPO managers) but not even proven guilty

LOOKING at recent comments in IP Kat, where anonymous people sometimes refer to the EPO‘s President Battistelli as “Battishenko” and “Bashar al-Istelli”, we find rather curious allegations in relation to this 'leaked' PDF which shows how Kongstad’s Administrative Counci (AC), masking itself as “EPO”, tried to crush a judge but got denied for having no legal basis. As it turns out, the EPO likes to throw around legally unsound documents, hoping to ‘trick’ people into doing things they needn’t do. If the EPO didn’t have the immunity is so proudly boasts about, it would probably get sued for legal abuse or legal bullying. Recall this case of trademark-trolling too.

“If the EPO didn’t have the immunity is so proudly boasts about, it would probably get sued for legal abuse or legal bullying.”Based on this rather curious comment, “Mr Kongstadt recently paid a visit to DG3 to threaten them in case they fail to obey the order to dismiss the DG3 member” (the judge).

“That is a serious allegation,” responded another person. “Any proof?”

“I would not surprised if this were to be true,” the commenter added. “We have seen more examples Mr. Kongstadt acts as Mr. Battistelli’s sidekick – rather than the AC president who is to ensure Mr. Battistelli is doing his work properly: secret one-on-one deals on remuneration, contacting the EBoA on his own rather than on behalf of the AC.”

If there is truth to this rumour, then we urge people to privately contact us and confirm/deny. There would be serious implications if this turned out to be true.

“If there is truth to this rumour, then we urge people to privately contact us and confirm/deny.”Another comment says: “What the above-mentioned communication from a Board of Appeal actually means is that Part VI of the Convention / Appeals Procedure no longer applies to certain technical fields, with more to follow soon.”

If the judge is dismissed by his/her colleagues, under pressure from the AC/EPO, then what makes these colleagues think they won’t be next in the firing line? We know the identity of the judge and it seems unlikely under these circumstances that these allegations are an objective truth; they’re quite likely ‘sexed up’ (like evidence of Iraq’s WoMD prior to invasion) and maybe dependent on very careful and selective dirt-digging by the ill-intending I.U. (Investigative Unit) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It’s not easy to dismiss someone for talking to colleagues, just as it’s not easy to besiege (or extradite) Julian Assange for merely publishing incriminating documents, handed over anonymously by genuinely concerned whistleblowers.

“What the above-mentioned communication from a Board of Appeal actually means is that Part VI of the Convention / Appeals Procedure no longer applies to certain technical fields, with more to follow soon.”
      –Anonymous“I see two outcomes to this saga,” another commenter writes:

1) At the next AC meeting the suspended DG3 member will have his salary cut again (reduced to 50% after the last AC meeting) with some kind of deal/threat circulated in the background to make sure he takes retirement. Problem solved.

2) The suspended DG3 member will not be renominated (like so many others) when his renomination is due. Problem solved.

“Or not,” said a different commenter. “2 more years of house ban is an harassment!

“It is now official that B. [Battistelli] lied to the AC and defamed the guy and made an unlawful disciplinary measure. The next AC will be surprising!”

“Actually, it is well know within the Office that Mr. Lutz is able to write his signature upside down, so that he can sign whatever the President pushes across the table to him without having to turn it round to read it.”
      –Anonymous jokeThere are many more comments there which are worth seeing. We particularly liked this amusing comment about Vice-President Lutz being like a lapdog of Battistelli. It says: “Actually, it is well know within the Office that Mr. Lutz is able to write his signature upside down, so that he can sign whatever the President pushes across the table to him without having to turn it round to read it.”

Well, the same seemingly applies to Kongstad these days, judging by the leaked PDF.

What will it take to stop Team Battistelli? We believe that information alone can put an end to it. The management of the EPO has far too much to hide, far too much to fear, and it is certainly doing a lot of things wrong. Team Battistelli, along with the I.U., wants to have a monopoly on privacy. These people want to run the EPO like the Stasi ran East Germany just so that, using the über ‘skills’ of bulk collection and mass surveillance^*, they can dig ‘dirt’ and dismiss anyone who ‘dares’ to question Team Battistelli. We need to reverse this disturbing trend and overcome the Stasi by inverting the so-called ‘transparency’. Accountability necessitates access to information — something that any public body should enable by default. All that Battistelli has done about transparency is write a blog post about it. █

“Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.”

–Bruce Schneier

____
^* In the UK it has just been made official and perfectly legal for spies and sometimes for police to access people’s complete Web browsing history, so each page ever accessed (even accidentally!) can be framed as ‘evidence’.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

President Battistelli Now Pressures/Threatens Politicians Who ‘Dare’ to Complain About Abuses and Unacceptable Conditions at the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

French politicians are not tolerating Battistelli’s patronising behaviour

Photo via Wikipedia

Summary: Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, a French politician, unleashes an angry letter from Benoît Battistelli and reveals just to what lengths the EPO’s Team Battistelli is willing to go in order to crush political backlash

THE EPO’s management is completely losing it, and it is going after politicians now, not just lawyers of staff whom it's abusing. It’s evidently fearful that political interventions will put end an to the status quo and we don’t know just how widespread this kind of response is. All we know is that Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ has just made public (possibly without any permission) a letter that reveals the pressure he came under for merely criticising the EPO’s management. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ was covered here the other day and beforehand, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]. There are similar motions from Dutch politicians and these significantly intensified lately, so we wonder if they too received such letters from Battistelli, as if he is the President of the world and no-one may ‘dare’ to question his authority, not even the French government. Who will Battistelli go after next? The European Federation of Public Service Unions? This is unprecedented and it’s almost unbelievable. Nevertheless it’s very much true and we thank Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ for ‘leaking’ evidence.

“This is unprecedented and it’s almost unbelievable.”Linking to the original blog about it (in French), one commenter says: “Benoît Battistelli is not able anymore to accept different opinions of Unions, journalists, politicians. When you do not agree with him or have critics he becomes agressive [sic] and you soon will have a visit of the Investigation Unit. I am afraid that the protest this week with a few thousend [sic] participants inclusive directors does not imprees [sic] him at all. Benoît Battistelli believes in a conspiracy against him.Read his letter. Nice foot for a couch doctor.”

This EPO letter from Battistelli to P.-Y. Le Borgn’ has been translated for us by a reader. “You probably know that French Deputy for Overseas Citizens,” this reader told us, “wrote a letter [PDF] to the EPO regarding the recent developments concerning repression of the staff unions and the Boards of Appeal.”

We did take note of that a few days ago, but we were looking for translations at the time.

“Battistelli recently replied,” we’re told, “and the reply is published on Le Borgn’s Web site here [PDF].

“I have translated the letter from Battistelli for your information.”

“Mr Le Borgn’ has commented on his Web site,” the reader added (as pointed out above), having decided to also translate his comments as follows:

I have received an angry letter from the President of the EPO in response to the letter that I sent earlier this week to the Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Economy, Emmanuel Macron, and which I published on my website. It is right to make the letter from President Battistelli public in the same way. You will therefore find this letter attached.

Fundamentally, I deny nothing that I wrote to the Minister. I add that I do not usually allow myself to be upset, nor lectured. I am a free parliamentarian and I endeavour to be fair. It is not in denying reality and eradicating social dialogue that one builds the future. I am distressed by the messages that I have been receiving from employees of the EPO, this morning too.

I have never seen such a conflict. President Battistelli knows that a resolution is important to me. I am grateful to him for accepting the exchange with me, including in his office at Munich at the start of this year. I believe he can also understand that one can be in disagreement with him and choose, as I did last Tuesday, to make public this disagreement when one believes that this is the only way out.

Here is the letter from Battistelli himself:

Monsieur le deputé,

You publish on your website a letter addressed to the Minister of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Economy, dated 18 November 2015, in which you alert him to the “deterioration” of the situation within the EPO by mentioning certain procedures taken against staff representatives. I can only deplore most profoundly this adoption of a public stance, without prior communication with the Office and without having taken the time to familiarise yourself with all aspects of this topic.

The procedures in motion are due to serious incidents which have occurred within the staff representation during the last 18 months and to which any responsible employer must react. In fact, shortly after the election of the staff representatives in June 2014, six of decided to resign, the most striking case concerning an elected member of the central staff committee who suffered a veritable campaign of harassment due to their opinions which diverged from those of the representatives of SUEPO, the majority internal union at the EPO. The result of these actions is that all the elected representatives who did not belong to SUEPO or who expressed alternative opinions quit the staff representation.

Such a situation, which makes a mockery of the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and association, of democratic pluralism, cannot be tolerated within our organisation and investigations were commissioned with the aim of establishing the facts and responsibilities, having regard to the regulations of the EPO. Where needed, notably in case of pressuring witnesses to obtain their retraction, suspensions may be implemented. The EPO has a duty of care for all its staff and we must protect our employees, independently of their status.

In this context, your public intervention relating to these procedures which are in progress seem to me to be most damaging. First of all, it is completely false to assert that “interrogations of rare force” had been conducted. This is especially easy to prove, because these interviews are recorded. Besides, it is not acceptable to cast aspersions on the Investigative Unit of the Office, composed of mothers and fathers dedicated to a task which is often diffcult but which is indispensable in the fight against fraud, harassment and other offences which could destabilise our organisation. Finally, I fear that your public stance in favour of certain individual members of SUEPO may be seen as a form of pressuring the staff representatives who resigned, victims of actions which they reported to the administration.

These individual procedures, linked to circumscribed facts, will not detract from my intention to achieve a social dialogue, respectful of the EPO, with various social partners. In order to improve the framework, last Spring I launched an initiative aimed at formalising legally the integration of the unions within the framework of the Office. I am determined to pursue the discussions and to sign a framework agreement with any union which so desires, including SUEPO.

If the Office has truly experienced a difficult period, it is mainly due to an intense campaign of defamation conducted by certain employees, with external representation, against the management of the Office and the Administrative Council of the Organisation, wrongly accused of multiple types of misconduct. The main actor in this shameful business – a member of the boards of appeal, a specialist in IT systems – has been discovered and numerous seizures of evidence bear witness to his many crimes (amongst others, leaks of confidential documents of the Boards to an external party for profit; violations of the Office IT system; storage of Nazi propaganda and weapons in his office; a letter with racist connotations sent to a Minister of State of the EU). This person, thanks to his technical expertise, knew how to create tens of false identities, apparent owners of blogs and websites, through which he propagated defamations, insults and threats. A number of his communications were addressed to national parliamentarians, particularly French ones (yourself among them) and European ones, and petitions have even been deposited with the European Parliament.

The aims of this operation: to discredit the management of the Office, in order to damage its capacity for reform and to prevent the bringing into force of the Unitary Patent, whose management has been entrusted to the Office by the institutions of the EU. The Disciplinary Committee of the Administrative Council of the EPO seized of this issue (an independent and joint body, headed by Lord Schiemann, a renowned judge, former member of the Court of Justice of the European Union) approved all of the procedure of the inquiry and considered that dismissal of the author of these facts is required. The impact for the Office in terms of its image and reputation has been very heavy, even if certain media outlets are beginning to better comprehend the nature of the conflict (see the annexe). I understand the magnitude of this impact all the more after having read your letter.

As far as the results and performance of the Office are concerned, the year 2015 looks set to be a record year for the level of production (+13%), for the control of costs (-10%), the quality of its products and services being recognised as the best in the world by its users, according to enquiries conducted by external organisations. Such results can only be obtained by the engagement of employees who are motivated and confident in their professional lives, supported by a new career system based on performance. We have additionally seen a sharp reduction in sickness absences (-35% in 5 years), a very low level of departure (2.5% of employees per year), as well as the reinforcement of the attractiveness of the Office as an employer (more than 20 000 candidates for 200 posts in 2015). These performances permit the funding of a fair return to the employees of the office. A few examples: an average increase of +10 to 12% in salaries since 2011; a budget of 18 million euros distributed in promotions and bonuses in 2015; almost half a billion euros injected into the retirees’ reserve fund.

I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to share this information with you before the publication of your letter. My door obviously remains open to all those who testify to an interest in the EPO and the positive role it plays in the European economy. I do not doubt, given your commitment to transparency and delivering the correct information to your readers, that you will publish this letter in its entirety on your website.

Yours sincerely,

Benoît Battistelli

Our reader is not a fluent French speaker so if any of our readers wish to correct it, we would be happy for corrections to be made as we go along. We need an accurate translation. Notice how in Battistelli’s letter he pretends that it all boils down to one single employee, whom he thoroughly discredits without producing evidence. This is a mis-characterisation of the problem and an effort to extrapolate or generalise, portraying the staff as a whole as violent without producing concrete evidence. As one commenter put it, “I don’t think the problem is facts and evidence. I think the problem is the link between an accusation – “He’s an armed nazi” – and evidence to be found somewhere on a USB stick – “we have found in his office a Nunchaku and a copy of the The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer.

“I think they have the right to come back and say that “this accusation is supported by these facts”…”

Worth noting is also the following comment:

Superann probably refers to the following letter dated 20 November 2015 addressed by BB to the Member of Parliament who represents the French expats in the national assembly, Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, with copy to the Minister of Economy Emmanuel Macron:

http://www.pyleborgn.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/R%C3%A9ponse-Pr%C3%A9sident-OEB.pdf

In this letter BB accuses the Member of the Board of Appeal, amongst other misconducts, of having stored arms and nazy propoganda in his room (see page 2, 3rd paragraph). These are the very accusations for which the in its recent decision stated that they were not based on any evidence whatsoever.
In support of his argumentation, BB also refers to recent press articles annexed to his letter, such as the paid-for article in EPO´s “media partner” Les Echos.

Yesterday we explained why Les Échos is not credible on these matters and we are going to revisit this subject very soon. It acts as a source of ‘placements’; it’s not real journalism if it censors its own reporters on behalf of so-called 'media partners' like the EPO.

As another comment put it: “So BB is writing letters to MPs including articles stating that the AC decided to dismiss a BoA member? Unbelievable!”

Well, this will be the subject of our next post. Nobody is getting dismissed. █

“Great talker, great liar.”

–French Proverb

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

11.21.15

EPO: It’s Like a Family Business – Part IV

Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 9:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Some more background information about Elodie Bergot and Gilles Requena, who are married whilst also sharing positions of power at the EPO (and also strong connections/ties with the EPO’s President, Mr. Battistelli); Rumours afloat at the EPO — some with ever-increasing circulation too — are worth noting

THE EPO is not an ordinary institution. It professes professionalism and public service, but it’s hard to take all that at face value. In part one, part two and part three of this series we have shown how Elodie Bergot, who is married to Battistelli’s assistant, got magically promoted. When the staff expressed shock the response from Team Battistelli was that some process which wasn’t even transparent was certain to assure the integrity of this promotion. Readers can make their own judgment and draw conclusions (if any) based on what we showed, but today we provide some more background about Gilles Requena.

“Mr. Requena previously worked under Battistelli when the latter was the Director General of the French National Institute for Intellectual Property (INPI). Mr. Requena joined the EPO in October 2010, a few months after Battistelli had taken up his duties as President of the EPO on the 1^st of July, 2010.”The husband of Ms. Bergot is Mr. Gilles Requena, who is a close assistant of Battistelli. Mr. Requena previously worked under Battistelli when the latter was the Director General of the French National Institute for Intellectual Property (INPI). Mr. Requena joined the EPO in October 2010, a few months after Battistelli had taken up his duties as President of the EPO on the 1^st of July, 2010.

Requena frequently accompanies Battistelli on his globe-trotting expeditions to the Intellectual Property Offices of the member states of the EPO and elsewhere:

Here he can be seen as a member of the Presidential entourage during a “state visit” to Liechtenstein. That’s where the image on the right is cropped from.

The photo on this Web page was taken during a visit to the IPO of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. An English version of the accompanying text is available at the same site. This is the source of the image on the left. It’s publicly accessible, hence not a violation of privacy.

When you work for a private company of which you are founder, CEO or whatever, hiring a friend or family may generally be dubious (frowned upon by staff) but not inherently offensive; when you do this in the public sector, however, you have a responsibility to the public (you already enjoy a monopoly), so hiring should be done solely in the interests of the public. That’s why people in such positions are typically referred to as “public servants” — an ordinary and mundane term that Battistelli largely disgraced, especially when the context is the European Patent Office/Organisation.

Rumours

Now we enter rumourville and we ask readers to treat these as mere rumours. “In 2007,” we’ve learned. “Ms. Brimelow disclosed her working conditions when she joined the Office as President (including an approximate calculation of her salary in July 2007). In 2015 Mr. Battistelli disclosed the staff’s working conditions [but] Mr. Battistelli’s own contract still remains a well-guarded secret, known only to Mr. [Jesper] Kongstad and Mr. Archambeau (previously PD HR and now-Vice President at OHIM in Alicante). Evil tongues say that Ms. Bergot recently gave the President a 13% increase.”

The source “can neither confirm nor deny these rumours.” Since there is so much secrecy around it all, it’s not possible either. One can only guess based on hearsay. Battistelli likes to publicly brag about “transparency”, but his contract is perhaps an exclusion, among so many more exclusions. We have already learned that Battistelli was “asked — in vain — for his detailed earnings, including his salary, in an open letter” from SUEPO.

Mr. Requena and Ms. Bergot are not the only people from Battistelli’s ‘extended family’, so to speak. As one recent writing from SUEPO suggests:

Shortly after taking up office, Mr Battistelli put several of his previous co-workers at the French patent office (INPI) on key posts in the Office. A few months ago we flagged that the “inner circle” seemed to be growing, in particular around Elodie Bergot (PD4.3).

Our predictions are materializing. One of Ms Bergot’s personal assistants is Nadja Lefèvre. Ms Lefèvre joined the Office on 15.03.2014 as “Administrator A3” She was soon appointed head of “Administrative Services for Social Dialogue”, i.e. of the 100% staff representatives and secretaries. Next she was appointed head of “Conflict Resolution” a.i. Finally, in June of this year, “Internal Communication” was added to this already impressive work package. Since then a vacancy notice was published for a “Director HR Strategic Support and Change Management”. Only internal candidates may apply. The new Director “will manage a directorate… currently organised in 3 units: Internal Communication, Conflict Resolution Unit and Social Dialogue Administration”. We would be extremely surprised if the successful candidate were anyone other than Ms Lefèvre.

Nadja Lefèvre was mentioned here before, in relation to media spin and controversial interrogations [1, 2].

Minnoyal Double Standards

“Mr. Minnoye,” we’ve learned (the current VP1), “appears not to be amused that (DG1) documents are regularly leaking to the outside world.”

“The EPO likes selective transparency, which means making publicly available only the things that make the EPO look good while deliberately hiding the rest.”Well, when documents serve to prove irregularities it’s called whistleblowing and whistleblowers generally enjoy certain protections. It guards justice and ensures accountability within a self-serving system. The way to ensure that documents don’t regularly leak is to behave properly, in which case the leakers don’t qualify as whistleblowers. Sadly for Mr. Minnoye, there is a lot more to come. Trying to obstruct reporting isn’t a wise idea because the backlash it causes can be an order of magnitude greater than the perceived (and short-term) ‘gain’.

According to the EPO's own documents, accelerated examination for large ‘clients’ was the idea of Battistelli and VP1 (Minnoye). To quote EPO documents: “Both The President and VP1 have expressed the opinion that there needs to be closer contact between examiners and their applicants.”

It has also been alleged that Minnoye was involved in the next wave of propaganda, but we cannot confirm this for sure (no transparency at the EPO).

According to this new comment, “VP1″ (Minnoye) is hypocritical for bemoaning leaks. To quote the commenter: “That wouldn’t by any chance be the same VP1 who was allegedly involved in leaking the “facts” about a confidential internal investigation report to the Dutch press?”

Well, according to a letter from SUEPO: “A week before the Council meeting, Mr Minnoye (VP1), Ms Mittermaier (our new Dir. External Communication) and Mr Osterwalder (EPO press spokesman) apparently met with a journalist of the Financiele Dagblad.”

“To some people, truth itself is a considerable threat.”It’s becoming easy to see why Mr. Minnoye isn’t a big fan of this whole “transparency” thing which the President keeps boasting about. The EPO likes selective transparency, which means making publicly available only the things that make the EPO look good while deliberately hiding the rest.

Attempts to crack Techrights tripled this past week (an all-time high), with nearly a million attempts in just one week. It’s hard to tell who or what is behind it, but it sure limits access to the server as it’s a brute force attack. We do our best to counter this (thankfully, we have the technical skills and experience), but sometimes that is not enough. We remind readers to help protect the right to inform the public, as such rights should never be taken for granted. To some people, truth itself is a considerable threat. █

“We often forget to appreciate something until we lose it. It’s a fact of life. We tend to take a lot of things for granted. We take a lot of people for granted.”

–J. Angelo Racoma

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Translation of Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann’s Article in the German Media, Urging European Politicians to Intervene in EPO Chaos and Lawlessness

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Frankfurt-based media presents an opinion piece written by a Munich-based economic correspondent, Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann

TECHRIGHTS would like to humbly thank all those who are sending translations to be shared with readers, many of whom appear to be patent attorneys, examiners, and so on (not the senders but the readers). There is clearly a lot of interest in EPO abuses and our coverage is driven to a large degree by our many sources.

The last translation that we wish to release tonight is a column from Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann, who writes for a newspaper in Frankfurt. It seems as though a lot of press from Frankfurt is critical of the EPO’s management, due to many different reasons, including legal immunity which one truly struggles to grasp. That’s just such an outlandish thing! It should be a foreign concept in a civilised Germany, unless we’re back to post-Weimar Republic era (at least inside Eponia). As Magenheim-Hörmann puts it, “what has been happening there for at least two years under the aegis of President Benoît Battistelli is a legitimate cause for alarm.”

Magenheim-Hörmann states that the patent system is important but is unable to function. “The threshold of pain has now been reached,” he writes, “and the gulf between staff and management has never been so wide. Even slow learners must have finally realised that the Office is no longer capable of returning to normality under its own steam. European politicians now have another fire to fight and they need to intervene to extinguish it as a matter of urgency.”

This is all based on a reasonably accurate translation, which we provide in full below:

19th November 2015

Immediate action required to stop the fire

by Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann

Intellectual property is a cornerstone of modern economies and the European Patent Office in Munich one of its most important guardians. In this regard, what has been happening there for at least two years under the aegis of President Benoît Battistelli is a legitimate cause for alarm.

Editorial Comment

Intellectual property is a cornerstone of modern economies and the European Patent Office in Munich one of its most important guardians. In this regard, what has been happening there for at least two years under the aegis of President Benoît Battistelli is a legitimate cause for alarm. He is implementing a reform of this institution, the details of which have not been without controversy, but nevertheless something which is the daily business of a manager. The methods employed by the Frenchman are frequently blundering and he proceeds without regard for “collateral damage”. Now an entire staff union is to be cropped, something which would be impossible in Germany, all the more so given that the allegations seem to be fabricated.

“Now an entire staff union is to be cropped, something which would be impossible in Germany, all the more so given that the allegations seem to be fabricated.”But from a formal legal perspective, the Office is not subject to national laws. It is also not an EU institution. Supranational organisations such as the European Patent Office regulate their industrial relations in largely autonomous manner. The sole supervisory organ for the management is an Administrative Council in which 38 European countries are represented. They seem to be as much at odds with each other as the EU in relation to the refugee question, all the more so given that the Administrative Council includes non-EU states.

The threshold of pain has now been reached and the gulf between staff and management has never been so wide. Even slow learners must have finally realised that the Office is no longer capable of returning to normality under its own steam. European politicians now have another fire to fight and they need to intervene to extinguish it as a matter of urgency.

Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann

Economic Correspondent, Munich

Now that three translations are out there for readers to catch up with we are ready to return to normal coverage of new material. There is a lot more to come in the month of November. We truly hope that IP Kat‘s Merpel too will have the energy to keep up and continue at last week’s pace. As one commenter told Merpel: “This is already more than we have ever received from the EPO administration, apart from the propaganda and smears, of course…” █

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”

–Andre Gide

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

German Press Says Broken EPO Lets President Severely Punish Staff Not Even Guilty of Any Wrongdoing

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Juve publishes an article which attempts to be ‘balanced’ (meaning it believes everything that EPO officials say) but at the same time reveals unacceptable practices that go in inside the EPO

SEVERAL recent German press articles (with translations) have been supplied to us and we wish to share these for readers’ information and for future reference. The previous such translation spoke about threats against individual lawyers and herein we present an article from Juve. It helps highlight yet another example where EPO management evidently overrides any legal safeguards for staff. It is almost as though the EPO is neither a part of Europe nor even a part of Earth (the planet). Staff is being subjected to institutional harassment despite doing nothing wrong (that can be properly proven). Here is the original in German and the English translation as follows, with additional remarks below:

European Patent Office: Three members of the staff representation suspended

The problems at the European Patent Office (EPO) show no sign of abating. The Office has now initiated disciplinary proceedings against three staff representatives, as an EPO spokesperson confirmed to JUVE. Among them is Elizabeth Hardon, Chairperson of the Staff Union SUEPO and a member of the Munich staff representation. The actions of the Office triggered spontaneous protests.

Labour law attorney Şenay Okyay who is familiar with the latest developments expressed a clear criticism of the measures: Past experience of such disciplinary proceedings has shown that even if the disciplinary committee concludes that Hardon is not guilty of any wrongdoing, the President of the EPO does not consider himself to be bound by such findings. He could still decide on a dismissal or another disciplinary sanction. Only then could Hardon attempt to assert her rights before the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. However, it usually takes many years before that Tribunal delivers its judgments and nobody is responsible for enforcing their execution.

“Past experience of such disciplinary proceedings has shown that even if the disciplinary committee concludes that Hardon is not guilty of any wrongdoing, the President of the EPO does not consider himself to be bound by such findings.”The attorney also criticized the fact that the suspensions are intended to muzzle the heads of the staff union SUEPO. This was contradicted by an EPA spokesman who claimed that the measures were justified by the misconduct of the staff representatives. The Office accuses the Union inter alia of data protection violations and harassment of colleagues. This is apparent from a statement by the EPO to its Member States which JUVE has seen. In addition, the Office disputes the claim that it initiated investigations into employees because they were SUEPO members. These measures were taken solely in order to investigate potential breaches of regulations by individual staff members. For this reason the EPO was not prepared to accede to SUEPO demands to terminate the disciplinary proceedings before the start of negotiations [about union recognition].

The disciplinary proceedings and suspensions triggered a spontaneous demonstration by staff in front of the EPO headquarters as well as protests on the Internet. The focus of the criticism is the manner in which the procedure has been conducted, because the disciplinary proceedings against Hardon were preceded by investigations carried out by the EPO’s so-called Investigation Unit. Such investigations are controversial because, according to the internal guidelines, the accused person does not have a right to remain silent and is not allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer during their interrogation. In the pending disciplinary proceedings, the defendants are now supposed to make written submissions in response to the allegations. This will be followed by a hearing before an internal committee equally composed of members of the management and staff representatives. According to experts, a decision may already be expected before Christmas.

“As has become known, the highest chamber of the internal judicial organ rejected as inadmissible a request to dismiss the judge.”In addition to the disciplinary proceedings at the EPO, a further lively discussion is taking place because proceedings to remove a member of the Boards of Appeal from office are also pending. Critics complain that this could jeopardize the independence of the internal judicial organ of the EPA. As has become known, the highest chamber of the internal judicial organ rejected as inadmissible a request to dismiss the judge. This request had been submitted by the Chairman of the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad. The Board of Appeal noted, inter alia, that in the case of a removal from office they needed to be certain that unsubstantiated or unfounded, false allegations could not be used as a pretext to get rid of an “irksome judge”.

However, in mid-October the Administrative Council initiated proceedings for the removal from office. Now the matter is before the Enlarged Board of Appeal for a second time.

Nevertheless, an EPO spokesperson announced that the social dialogue was to be continued in parallel to the three suspensions that include a “house ban”. The EPO is aiming to conclude an agreement with the staff unions and to grant them a legal standing in the EPO regulations which they have hitherto lacked. (Christina Schulze)

Recently, Juve interviewed and extensively quoted a prominent retired judge regarding the suspension of the above judge — a subject that we covered here before, even days ago when an English translation became publicly available. The article from Christina Schulze says that I.U. “investigations are controversial because, according to the internal guidelines, the accused person does not have a right to remain silent and is not allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer during their interrogation.”

“As a practising European Patent Attorney I am deeply concerned by the news emerging from the EPO and thank you for your good work in exposing the outrageous conditions.”
      –Anonymous European Patent AttorneyBut actually, even worse things are happening, as we covered in our recent series [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Then there is the rogue bunch of activities introduced by CRG, as covered in the articles below. Schulze speaks of “protests on the Internet.” Maybe she should speak to some people who write about this subject online ahead of publication of her next article. She can also speak to some angry patent lawyers, under the privilege/promise of anonymity. It is evident that even ‘clients’ (applicants) of the EPO are visibly upset. One person wrote this just before the weekend: “As a former patent attorney who once had a lot of respect for the EPO, this is pretty appalling.”

Remember that there is nowhere else for lawyers to turn to. The EPO has a monopoly in Europe, so poor service from the EPO harms everybody. It’s as if the EPO is “too big to fail”.

Earlier today a European lawyer told us: “As a practising European Patent Attorney I am deeply concerned by the news emerging from the EPO and thank you for your good work in exposing the outrageous conditions.”

There is a lot more to this story than the EPO's PR 'firewall' cares to admit. If journalists like Schulze require more information on the subject, we will be happy to assist; we feel obliged to help.

This clearly isn’t a case of angry peasants with pitchforks going after rich ‘successful’ guys but a case of abusive under-qualified old buddies from France regrouping and ganging up against doctors and professors who decided to become patent examiners. █

• More Utter Shame Unveiled at Battistelli’s EPO: Intimidation Tactics With Help From ‘Control Risks’
• Süddeutsche Zeitung Article About the EPO’s Investigation Unit and Control Risks Group
• The EPO Sinks Deeper in a Scandal After Paying Public Money for Military-Connected Control Risks to Stalk Journalists and Staff
• EPO May be Creating Its Own Lawless NSA (or GCHQ) With Control Risks Group Deal
• EPO Officially Confirms That It Specifically Hired Control Risks Group (CRG) to Spy on Journalists and Their Sources
• EPO Corruption Compared to FIFA Corruption While ‘Control Risks’ Helps EPO Hide/Suppress Evidence of Corruption; Calls on German Authorities to Crack Down on Both
• The European Patent Office Has Become Militarised
• EPO Reluctantly (and Privately) Confirms Giving Public Money for Military-connected ‘Control Risks’ to Spy on Journalists and Their Sources While Techrights is Under Fresh DDOS Attacks
• EPO Data Protection Officer ‘Just a Dictator’s Minion’, Approved Keyloggers and Hidden Cameras
• European Patent Office (EPO) Now Uses Keyloggers to Spy on Staff
• Investigation Unit a Complete Farce Inside the EPO
• Süddeutsche Zeitung Says Talking Helps While EPO Management Back-stabs Other Side of the Table
• EPO Surveillance, Threats, and Patronisation of Dutch Legal System Covered in Dutch Article From De Volkskrant
• Techrights Confirmed as a Target of EPO Surveillance, With Help From Control Risks Group (CRG)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend