03.06.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And how can a leader who is lying to the media be tolerated by the Organisation?
Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s credibility is rapidly being diminished by dubious statements, semi-truths, truth-bending, and even outright lies
SQUIRMING to get himself out of a mess of his own creation, President Battistelli, soon to be just Mr. Battistelli, makes statements which he will find hard to defend (if properly scrutinised).
What Battistelli says about his “success” is untrue. We heard it from multiple sources, both inside and outside the EPO. People know that the data which EPO marketers brag about is at best spin. It’s not atypical to lie to staff of the EPO and even to journalists. It is a bad-spirited thing. It is a truly (or falsely) misguided strategy because sooner or later the recipients of lies find out, feel betrayed, and then get angry. Then they just stop believing the boy who keeps crying “wolf!” It’s thus a short-term strategy.
“It is a truly (or falsely) misguided strategy because sooner or later the recipients of lies find out, feel betrayed, and then get angry.”“I actually know lots of insider data,” told us one person, “but unfortunately it is too sensitive.” A lot of people have a lot to say, but people are afraid to say it. The emperor is naked but there’s expected punishment for those who say this to the crowd. Reprisal, with demonstrable effects (like dismissed staff representatives), prevents truth from getting disseminated. That’s when people increasingly need to rely on hearsay, or as the media calls it, “rumours”.
When will the “results” data of the EPO be publicly subjected to fact-checking? Are there any decent journalists out there? Prepared to embark on a harder project than just parroting the PR Team or editing E-mails from them (ghostwriting)? For instance, this new article from lawyers’ press mentioned the PR team‘s “Rainer Osterwalder, a spokesman for the EPO” and attributes to him these dubious figures. These people aren’t scientists, they’re marketers and this is what they’re paid to do.
Relating to something we published on Saturday (and have just translated into Spanish), one reader said that we missed the most interesting part of the IAM data (from the screenshots that speak about a survey of readers in an EPO-friendly niche site). In 2012 “68% or respondents stated that the EPO’s quality is either “excellent” or “very good”, that’s up from 62% in 2011.” However, in 2015 “the EPO did even better among private practice respondents, achieving 62% at either excellent or very good.” Not exactly sure how that agrees with Battistelli stating that: “More users have confirmed that they’re highly satisfied with the quality of our products.”
“The emperor is naked but there’s expected punishment for those who say this to the crowd.”That’s actually a fair point. However, we don’t believe Battistelli actually wrote that talking point. He just sat there in a studio on a chair, reading an English script with a photo of Munich superimposed on the background with some dynamic backdrops (Caesar of Germany in his own mind). Either way, the very fact that he spreads this misleading stuff and it comes from his buddies at IAM (they rub each other’s back) while calling this “independent” is in itself somewhat amusing. If not just comical, it’s outrageous. It damages Battistelli’s credibility (what’s left of it).
Battistelli’s salary is probably the subject many people are speaking about these days. What if the President has just hidden/concealed/canceled his bonuses (perhaps renaming the benefits package), got a new contract, and prayed nobody would find the old one/s? A lot of things are theoretically possible and without hard evidence people are left wondering.
“In April 2015 his salary was reported as 250k Euros,” noted a reader of ours, recalling this article titled "Truce at the Tax Haven of the European Patent Office".
“Battistelli’s salary is probably the subject many people are speaking about these days.”“If the earlier figure was correct this would presumably indicate that the “new” 300k figure refers to his salary following the extension of his contract in the summer of 2015,” this reader added. “What remains unanswered is what additional payments he gets on top of his basic salary. He denies getting any “bonus”. That might be formally correct because additional payments might not be officially designated as a “bonus” in the contract. The real problem here is the lack of transparency about the terms of his contract. Not even the Administrative Council who appointed him appears to have been allowed to inspect the contract.”
Well, Mr. Kongstad does know what’s in the contract. We pointed this out several times before. “IAM,” our reader added, “which is otherwise best known for its EPO puff pieces, got upset about the lack of transparency back in 2010″ and wrote: “The lack of transparency surrounding the selection of Benoît Battistelli as the next president of the EPO was never a good idea. Where senior appointments are made in the murk and without full explanation or disclosure there is always room for rumours to emerge. And that is exactly what is now happening.”
“Kongstad is one of the very few people who know (and apparently sign off) Battistelli’s salary.”Towards the end Mr. Kongstad too gets mentioned: “On top of this, not to make the terms public is entirely self-defeating. As the SUEPO newsletter states: “… it seems clear that if Mr. Kongstad feels he has to hide the contract that there is something to hide”. The simple fact is that if you are not transparent in your selection process, you leave room for doubt. We don’t know why Benoît Battistelli was chosen to be the next president of the EPO and we do not know under what terms he will hold the post. Most people inside the European patent bubble will probably think this is not a desirable state of affairs, but in the end they will just shrug their shoulders and get on with it. However, most Europeans are not inside that bubble and a good number of them are suspicious of or dubious about patents and those who administer the patent system. This seemingly total absence of transparency will not help to change their minds.”
Kongstad is one of the very few people who know (and apparently sign off) Battistelli’s salary. Maybe the rift is now partly motivated by self interest, namely Kongstad trying to secure/save his own job. As IAM pointed out 6 years ago, it’s just odd that the contract is kept secret; it suggests that they are hiding something. If Battistelli is willing to make statements about it to the media but still refuses to show the contract (including past contracts), then he is not telling the full truth. His predecessor did disclose her salary, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented a thing to do. It wouldn’t be defensible to hide under a rock; there’s no use of a valid excuse here because none exists.
“The uncertainty leaves people speculating, and it sometimes works against Battistelli. But it’s better for him to say nothing at all than to say something he might later regret (unless there’s not much time left for him anyway).”We could use confirmation (smoking gun, not hearsay) regarding the salary of Battistelli, but the answer to the question wouldn’t be so simple, definitely not as simple as Battistelli wishes for it to appear. We had a lot of people tell the number/s, but there is some variation there and it seems to vary depending on definitions. More people than just Kongstad know the actual salary, “but as you can imagine that is very confidential,” as one source put it. The uncertainty leaves people speculating, and it sometimes works against Battistelli. But it’s better for him to say nothing at all than to say something he might later regret (unless there’s not much time left for him anyway).
Back when we wrote about the unreasonable compensation demands we noted (to paraphrase a little) that this served to prove a lot of what we wrote before, but the part about Battistelli’s salary we very much doubted as it would serve to suggest that his ‘real’ salary was hiked to almost 2 million euros (per annum). Another possibility is that the number is not correct and that it’s actually 10 years’ salary, based on extrapolation of a much lower figure (salary). Either way, this is where Battistelli’s unacceptable secrecy about his salary (his predecessor disclosed hers) actually harmed him even more.
“Nothing to fear, nothing the hide,” says the billionaires’ media to us…
“Another thing,” told us a source, relates to the bogus letter of support.
“There have been so many leaks that I think soon it may be possible to get a list together about who signed and who refused to sign that stupid petition,” our source told us, and “that will be quite interesting. Very telling the reactions of the PDs.”
Well, those who signed it (or allowed it to be signed in their name) might regret this later (days/weeks down the line) because of an unnecessary/avoidable embarrassment, especially after Battistelli is history. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.05.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Not this kind of fallout, but a silent killer nonetheless
Management-approved shelter for staff and also means for exerting control on staff-led structures (controlled opposition, steered to some degree by those whom it’s supposed to influence)
Summary: The impact of the Memorandum of (Mis)Understanding (MoU) just signed with the Battistelli-led EPO, which — although not necessarily malicious by intent — poses a threat to a lot of members of staff and gives greater powers to Battistelli’s friends at the top
IN an effort to report on this subject accurately, while intentionally representing alternative angles from alternative sources like comments too (and without dogmatic omission of views/perspectives), we decided to study a lot of documents (this isn’t a hobby but a passion of mine) and discuss the matter with the Chairman of FFPE EPO, who has gotten in touch with us after we repeatedly wrote/remarked on this subject (we regret nothing that was said and have not been proven wrong).
“People feel strongly about this because their hard-earned career depends on it.”Research on the matter enables us to better differentiate/discern fiction/spin from fact. This means that in this article we don’t accept arguments at face value and will humbly attempt to challenge claims where these seem dubious and exceedingly unlikely, based on documents that we studied for a long time and even researched further while putting together the article.
A lot of the views below are based on E-mail communication and IP Kat, where a lot of people comment anonymously on this subject (anonymity for one’s protection, not to cause offense). As one comment put it on Saturday:
Anonymity today at the EPO is not a game. It’s a question of survival.
Some elected staff rep. acting as such have been fired for alleged harassment where the alleged victim (another staff rep.) was even not complaining.
Everybody looks happy on the official picture. The neckties and smiles are perfect. But don’t forget that these people are dark and without mercy. Their behavior and their methods have ruined the life of several colleagues and our reputation.
Now the ashtrays are full, the bottles empty, the band is tired and the party is over. Having signed a MOU with such people looks already like a very bad dream and may be not such a brilliant move.
People feel strongly about this because their hard-earned career depends on it. Nearly 10,000 people — some of the brightest minds in Europe along with their families — are impacted. Recall how even a spouse of a staff representative got dragged into this (worse than the time Battistelli threatened SUEPO's lawyers, threatened delegates, and even French politicians). Based on German media, suicides too are sometimes caused by the Investigative Unit of Battistelli [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], so this can be a matter of life and death. I heard a lot of stories from a lot of people and I know how suicide can sometimes be seen as the easier way out. When the safeguards and protections traditionally offered in modern society are removed, we’re left exposed to beastly medieval thugs without compassion and this is why a lot of EPO workers are complaining (not only on behalf of colleagues but also for themselves).
“I heard a lot of stories from a lot of people and I know how suicide can sometimes be seen as the easier way out.”“I have read what people (probably colleagues) have wrote [sic] about FFPE EPO on your site or on IP-KAT,” told me the Chairman of FFPE EPO. The last time we wrote about it was just before he decided to go public and respond to harsh comments. What took so long? For a number of days (definitely more than a day) the implicit policy was to say nothing, but “if you look there again you will see that I have reacted to most if not all of these allegations,” told me the Chairman. Here is the comment which triggered the first response:
FFPE was clearly free to sign the agreement. It is up to its members to decide whether it acted in their interest or not. However, they clearly cannot claim to act in the interest of the EPO staff in general given their number.
Who has some (more) questions to answer is the President of the EPO. The Admin Council may ask him to explain why he signed an agreement with an organisation that represents only a negligible minority of the staff and does not seem to fulfill the conditions of the agreement itself (only the staff of the Hague are entitled to adhere while the others may only be allowed on the basis of a discretionary decision of the committee under art.20 of the statute, no regular elections seem to be hold from their info page).
Maybe to clarify this issue some informed reader should finally tell us:
1)how many members the FFPE has;
2) how many of them are not dutch nationals;
3) how many of them are not based in Den Haag;
4) when were the last elections hold.
Then, responding to the above, Chairman of FFPE EPO wrote:
Membership is, as always under Dutch association law, to the discretion of the committee of the association. Any employee of the EPO can become a member. Regular elections are held every 2 to 3 years in conformity with the statutes. FFPE EPO does not register nationality of its members and neither should it. However candidates to the committee can of their own volition tell the members their nationality. Up to now FFPE had committee members of Dutch, Romanian and English nationality in the 4 successive committees that have been elected over the past 8 years. FFPE EPO already has members in various sites of the EPO. Last elections were held in 2013 and new elections are planned in April 2016. As the NRC handelsblad stated in its press article of 2 March 2016 FFPE EPO had 75 members on that day. The reason for the exceptional article 20 is that FFPE EPO is of the opinion that it would be better if members of FFPE EPO in other sites than The Hague set up their own FFPE section and elect their own committee. This is for practical reasons because it is not very easy to have general assemblies reaching a quorum when the members are spread over 4 different locations. Nobody is going to take a plane from Munich to The Hague to attend the annual general assembly of the members or vice versa.
I hope this answers most of the questions posed here.
Samuel van der Bijl
Chairman FFPE EPO
PS: If you have so many questions about FFPE why don’t you ask them at work? I am not hiding from anyone and nearly always there to answer any questions. Alternatively email can be used. A meeting especially for Munich staff is currently being planned at the request of our colleagues there.
He later added:
“Btw, someone above writes that “FFPE EPO does enjoy the full support to sign this MoU from one of the largest union federations FFPE represented at the EU commission, the EU council, the council of Europe, Eurocontrol etc.. and the Federal bureau of this Union Federation assisted in drafting and negotiation of the present MoU”.
Is this true?”
Yes this is true. The communiqué de presse on the ffpe-epo website referred to above was approved by the federal bureau of FFPE on the morning before the signature. At the signature event in the afternoon, the federal president of FFPE, mr. John Parsons was present as well as the presidents of the FFPE sections at the European Commission (Pierre Philippe Bacri) and the EU council (Simon Coates).
Samuel van der Bijl
Chairman FFPE EPO
This was his final message:
“Dear Mr van der Bijl can you explain how some documents of FFPE-EPO landed into the defense file of the EPO vs. SUEPO in front of the Court of Appeal of The Hague ?
Is firing on SUEPO your line of work ?”
We do not know of any of our public documents being used for any case whatsoever. Please prove your argument please. Then complaining about public documents being used publicly is a bit strange to say the least. A better defense would be to prove that there is anything inaccurate in these documents. After all, the truth shall set you free, doesn’t it? Since the FFPE EPO committee has never in 8 years received any complaints about the inaccuracy of any one of our communications and therefore also never issued any correction, which we of course would have if this was the case, we have to assume that they were correct unless proven otherwise.
Finally I could return your argument of course. Is firing on FFPE EPO your line of work? FFPE EPO has been fired upon continuously and relentlessly for many years now, mostly under the cover of anonymity of course and often publicly outside of the EPO because that is how this seems to work. Are we now also forbidden to defend ourselves against negative stereotypes and outright lies?
Samuel van der Bijl
Chairman
PS: This is my last reply on this thread, I think everything that needed to be said has been said and people interested in the truth should address the FFPE EPO committee internally and not under the cover of anonymity.
This began to attract some followup questions addressed to him personally, e.g.:
“This is my last reply on this thread”
Well, that’s it, your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
Dear Mr. Van der Bijl.
Even your Article 20 allows you to accept members (at your discretion) from Munich. FFPE made it clear that the membership is not open to all duty stations. Because FFPE is Brussels based, Article 20 does not allow you to accept members from the EPO Brussels duty station.
Some believe that this is a reason to suspend the memorandum:
The accusation that the staff from all other EPO locations (Berlin, Brussels, Munich, Vienna) cannot join the FFPE is very serious.
Because the memorandum has been made public here, the chairman of FFPE-EPO should in good faith make his Articles of Association public.
If any such limitation is indeed mentioned therein, the President has to act. He is deemed to have taken notice of such discrimination, because these Articles of Association are provided to him in compliance with the Art. 5 of the MOU. The criteria of Art. 7 of the MOU (representation of members of staff without any discrimination based on any ground) is unambiguous and by virtue of Art. 9 of the MOU, the Administration has to suspend the memorandum.
Another followup question arose:
Dear Mr van der Bijl can you explain how some documents of FFPE-EPO landed into the defense file of the EPO vs. SUEPO in front of the Court of Appeal of The Hague ?
Is firing on SUEPO your line of work ?
We honestly think that’s an unfair rhetorical question, but an unintended consequence of signing that deal is that SUEPO will suffer, even if/when the whole circle of Battistelli is dethroned.
“When SUEPO got itself in a strong conflict with management in the year 2014 they lost these facilities and so did we.”
–FFPE EPO ChairmanSamuel told me: “Clearly you have been very badly informed by people who don’t know what really happened at the EPO and spend their time spreading rumours which are wrong either in part or completely.”
Telling a person that he or she is misinformed (or “badly informed”) is fine, as long as there is supportive evidence that convinces the person of his/her error. So we took into consideration what Samuel wrote, and it goes like this:
FFPE EPO is not a yellow Union as the newest articles on your site seem to claim. Our membership is composed for a large part of lower grade colleagues and the remainder of examiners who are critical of the way SUEPO has handled negotiations on employment conditions over the past 15-20 years. Because most of the lower grade administrative staff in our section in The Hague is of Dutch nationality we are often targeted as being just a Dutch union. It sometimes almost seems that we should apologize for having many lower grade Dutch colleagues. I think this is profoundly unfair! These colleagues who earn considerably less than the expat examiner staff do a lot of good work which is very essential to the organisation. In fact, not a single one of our members or even former members has ever been promoted to higher management positions and none of our current members occupies a higher management position. This is of course not the case for our competing Union SUEPO. We have never been granted any facilities or rooms that SUEPO did not receive before. In fact we received more or less the same or considerably less resources. When SUEPO got itself in a strong conflict with management in the year 2014 they lost these facilities and so did we. Of course losing these facilities was much harder to handle for a small Union as FFPE-EPO than for a large one like SUEPO which also has a very considerable amount of money.
This seems fine on the surface, but how do claims that SUEPO are on a higher pay grade (salary) disprove the possibility that FFPE EPO might be a yellow union? We didn’t call it that but said that it looks like it, might be it, or might gradually turn into one. The nationality part aside (we never touched this aspect at all because it is less relevant to legitimacy but more to suitability and MoU eligibility), the main claim above says that FFPE EPO had no financial advantage over SUEPO. That’s a bit of a straw man argument because never was it suggested that FFPE EPO was somehow supposed to be artificially elevated in the pay grade sense. All we claimed was, FFPE EPO is embraced in the negotiation sense/phase (no discriminatory treatment or material aid) and given a sort of limelight, not necessarily preferential treatment. The photo op is a culmination of that. Regarding the pay grade point, one comment recently said: “I really don´t know what the confusion is about. There already has been a union leader who turned to management and became an infamous PD at the EPO. Much better paid on that side of the table. Mr. Van der Bijl and the other “leaders” of FFPE-EPO will have to share 30 pieces of silver and that´s about it.”
Samuel continued:
FFPE EPO is affiliated to a greater federation of unions called FFPE which exists since 1962 and has been created as an alternative to the unions that existed already and were without any exception all of a very strong socialist signature. As you will be able to verify by yourself FFPE was one of the organisations that created the CESI organisation which is an organisation of independent and politically non affiliated unions of mainly conservative and/or liberal(in the European sense) signature. For a political reason that I do not know FFPE is now no longer a member of CESI though which means we are politically speaking fully independent now.
Techrights spent some time studying documents about FFPE and its relationship with European authorities, but these are an entirely different monster because the European Union/Parliament/Commission isn’t an international body immune from the law like Eponia (which virtually exists in a vacuum). FFPE has existed for many decades, but not so when it comes to FFPE EPO. In fact, both FFPE and SUEPO have existed for many decades (they are almost the same age); FFPE EPO is somewhat of a new phenomenon. It’s worth noting.
FFPE-EPO has in its short existence participated in no less than 3 strike actions in the EPO, the last one being against the implementation of the new strike regulations. One of the concessions we fought very hard for is a full renegotiation of these strike regulations. We have also been in 2012 very critical of the investigation guidelines which were for the most part based on a proposal of our competing union SUEPO. They will be renegotiated as well.
Fast-tracking a little, here are some additional comments we have on this:
I see some here are mixing the issues of investigations and reognition of unions. I would be curious to know which of the two unions was negotiating the current “investigation guidelines” with the EPO in 2012? And which of the two unions at the time was publishing internally an intensive criticism of these same guidelines? Archives can be very interesting sometimes especially since it was all printed on paper at the time.
It seems like it’s possible that someone did a lot of work and someone was piggybacking the other (i.e. one doing a lot of the work, another taking credit). Later we’ll see the hypothetical SUEPO quote: “There are two kinds of trade unions, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.”
“In one of our very first communications we have asked for a recognised status for all unions in the EPO.”
–FFPE EPO ChairmanNow, FFPE EPO could claim that SUEPO takes much of the burden for setting up initiatives using its superior resources, but still, a leader is a leader. Looking at the Web site of FFPE EPO, we’re seeing little more than a fossil stuck nearly a decade in the past (the content, not just the site’s design).
Union recognition in its own right may be fine, but to quote Samuel:
In one of our very first communications we have asked for a recognised status for all unions in the EPO. Of course we were very pleased when the administrative council of the EPO asked the EPO to start discussions to create such a possibility. Considering how the negotiations went and considering the concessions management was ready to make to get a deal there never was any reason for us not to continue negotiating.
Not even when FFPE EPO complained about suspension (and later sacking) of other unions' representatives? In a rather shallow way in some blog comment, and only after many comments had complained about FFPE EPO’s silence?
Our members which are all normal EPO staff and not higher managers were very convinced that the Memorandum which we managed to negotiate presented a clear improvement for the staff and therefore voted in favour of the deal with a large majority. The committee of FFPE EPO had therefore the obligation to follow the will of its members and sign this agreement.
Look at the timing of the signing. Is it not obvious? It was right before EPO propaganda day, intended to distract from negative publicity due to managerial abuse. Why become a tool of propaganda?
Explaining the roots of FFPE EPO, Samuel writes:
As for the question why FFPE-EPO was really created, I can say that one of the most important reasons many of our members, especially lower grade members give is “education allowance”. What is education allowance? Since EPO staff fall outside of the national system of subsidies etc.. the organisation gives a partial compensation for the costs of studying of the children of EPO staff. However this allowance is ONLY given to expatriate staff which do not have the Dutch nationality for the EPO in The Netherlands, the German nationality for the EPO staff in Munich or Berlin or the Austrian nationality in Vienna. We have launched and supported an internal appeal in the EPO against this rule and went all the way to the ILO in Geneva. Unfortunately since the EPO is not bound to decisions and case law of the European court in Luxembourg we lost our case. Nevertheless the fact that a French, German, Spanish etc.. colleague can send its children to a Dutch university and get most of its tuition fees reimbursed whereas a Dutch colleague sending his children to exactly the same Dutch university does not get any reimbursement at all remains profoundly unfair. This is also the only real reason why FFPE EPO is so fiercely attacked by some expat staff. They are extremely affraid [sic] that any opening of discussions on this specific topic might put in danger somehow the reimbursement of the extremely high tuition fees of their children to the most prestigious universities in the United States and the UK. Of course our lower grade Dutch colleagues will never be able to afford such tuition fees for their children.
The schools aspect was unknown to many, but here is a reference to Pompidou and the schools aspect (responding to a comment to be mentioned in full later):
“Most of the staff is supportive to SUEPO actions nowadays, while FFPE historically is there because the dutch are jealous of the non-dutch staff (e.g. British School), they never called a Strike and they were not part of recent actions, I dunno even why they are there since the staff couldn’t care more about them.”
They are not there because of the British and other international schools that non-Dutch staff unlike Dutch staff can send their children to at no cost (but at rather significant costs to the EPO) whereas in Munich all staff can send their children to the European school. That system was in place in The Hague long before FFPE was founded.
They are also not there because of expat allowance for non-Dutch staff. Unlike the majority of German staff in Munich, Dutch staff in The Hague generally do not answer “please abolish the expat allowance” when asked what would make them happiest.
They are there because of the seat agreement signed by Pompidou in 2005 (the agreement that Kober wisely did not wish to sign in that form) and the way Suepo The Hague dealt with Dutch staff’s concerns at that time. The seat agreement significantly extended the privileges of non-Dutch staff. Note that no such privileges or special treatment regimes for non-German staff exist in Munich. With about half of Munich staff being German the Office knows better than to accept such measures that would split staff in two camps, like the seat agreement did in The Hague but with one camp being too small and too unrepresented to be heard.
That said, I simply cannot understand why FFPE chose to sign this MoU at this time. It is historically bad judgment. Whether BB survives the next weeks or not, FFPE will remain tainted by this.
So again, while the intention may have been benign, the impact will be negative, maybe even to FFPE EPO itself. “From the NRC article,” as a new comment put it, “this speaks for itself” (it uses our translation):
This week, you signed an agreement with a small union. A step, but not a solution for your conflict with SUEPO, which represents half of the staff.
“You should not judge the patent office with Dutch eyes. We are not Dutch, German or French. We are European, with different cultures and traditions. (…) We will continue the dialogue and the recognition of unions that accept our legal framework. I sincerely hope that SUEPO realize that their “empty seat” is not to the advantage of employees or of the patent office.”
Samuel wrote:
Now you could just say, that is just tough luck for the lower grade employees of the EPO and they should just shut up, be silent, and support the union whose representatives voted against granting education allowance in the internal appeal committee of the EPO and did everything they could to silence their protest.
Or alternatively you could decide that you are a good person that wants to do what is right and just.
This leads to the appearance of benevolence and sincerely/honest intentions, but still, at what cost? It seems like FFPE EPO got somewhat entrapped here. For the promise of cheaper education for lower grade staff and their families they need to submit to Battistelli and his goons? Is that like a package deal?
Again, it seems more like Battistelli ‘tricked’ Samuel into becoming a PR item on his agenda (to be ‘sold’ to the Administrative Council). I am abundantly convinced that Samuel meant to do the right thing (from his point of view) and now he pays the price of trusting Battistelli. To quote Samuel:
Anyway, regardless of your decision I have not given up on doing the right thing even if it is difficult and it makes me one of the most hated persons in the EPO. I just don’t care, I have had all kinds of hate mail a person can get so I have a very thick skin by now.
Sending hate mail is, suffice to say, counterproductive. Battistelli with his photo op and new talking point (and lying to journalists about it) is the main problem.
Debunking the obsession about nationality (which we never entertained much anyway), Samuel wrote:
We have by the way members of all nationalities in our union. For some people it is however because of the internal pressure not so easy to come forward as a candidate for our committee.
Given that the MoU might be irrevocable, it may be time to cooperate or liaise with FFPE EPO, trying to do “the right thing,” as Samuel put it, and change the President with whom this Memorandum got signed. Given the feedback that Samuel has received, perhaps now he too can back-stab Battistelli, in the same way that Battistelli’s circle back-stabbed FFPE EPO by sticking/wiping a photo op right in people’s faces (and in the faces of journalists in England, Germany and the Netherlands). Samuel wrote:
Anybody who is willing to negotiate with us and to do what is right in the EPO, for the benefit of the employees and for the European Public in general, I will talk with, no matter what people may say or may think. The Memorandum was signed with the EPO and not just with one president, it is meant to last for a long time and it is meant for every union in the EPO which does not wish to continue the current empty chair policy.
Unless FFPE EPO openly expresses concern (after the MoU) about Battistelli’s actions, people will maintain their already negative perception of FFPE EPO. As one person put it:
I bed my printed version of ECLA (may God send the CPC to hell) and my EPC bible, that as soon as Terminator is fallen, the so obedient guys of the FFPE-EPO will quickly turncoat and declare urbi et orbi that the pressure exerted on them for signing was irresistible.
Also see this person who says that “apparently the Federal Bureau of FFPE assisted in the drafting and negotiation of this MoU. Really? That will be news to most EPO staff, and must therefore have happened clandestinely.”
In Anonymous’s haste to justify the unjustifiable, he unwittingly only confirms the suspicions that most of us are expressing:
“FFPE EPO does enjoy the full support to sign this MoU from one of the largest union federations FFPE represented at the EU commission, the EU council, the council of Europe, Eurocontrol etc.. and the Federal bureau of this Union Federation assisted in drafting and negotiation of the present MoU. A memorandum of Understanding is a very normal gentleman’s agreement signed between unions and the management of an International Organisation.”
First of all, apparently the Federal Bureau of FFPE assisted in the drafting and negotiation of this MoU. Really? That will be news to most EPO staff, and must therefore have happened clandestinely. Were even the putative members on FFPE-EPO consulted during these negotiations? This claim is all the more surprising as the President has notoriously resisted any requests for external involvement in any staff matter, both from SUEPO and from Board 28. But in this case no doubt it must have suited him.
Moreover, the claim that this text is a “very normal gentleman’s agreement signed between unions and management of an international organisation” gives the lie to the President’s claims that the EPO’s is in fact unprecedented! Speaking of its “normality” could someone from FFPE provide the texts of the other cited agreements, for comparison? I venture to speculate that they will be rather different and probably more like the drafts submitted by SUEPO based on best practice, but ignored by the management.
Yes, it’s true that it got virtually ignored. We noticed that. Now, to allude to actual numbers and scale differences:
1% of EPO staff is with FFPE
40% of EPO staff is with SUEPO
59% of EPO staff have decided that they do NOT want to join UNIONs
There are staff representatives to represent the staff, whatever any UNION does is a matter for them only.
So solving “problems” with the unions is still not solving the issue with the 59% of staff, whatever FFPE and SUEPO do they cannot represent the whole staff.
Most of the staff is supportive to SUEPO actions nowadays, while FFPE historically is there because the dutch are jealous of the non-dutch staff (e.g. British School), they never called a Strike and they were not part of recent actions, I dunno even why they are there since the staff couldn’t care more about them.
As a bit of a joke about the whitewashing of all this by the circle of Battistelli, who did a photo op with FFPE folks:
“Something went wrong with BB’s white-wash!” says…
From SUEPO (XXL) —39% shrinkage —> FFPE-EPO (S)
I WANT MY STAFF REPS BACK!!!!
SUEPO is the union where there were personal sacrifices, unlike FFPE EPO.
“The FFPE are a well-meaning lot, and they certainly don’t have any truck with Battistelli bullshit. They’re completely Dutch-centred, but that’s historical and doesn’t mean that they won’t welcome a wider membership,” one reader told us (we omit the rest). This is something we can agree with, not just for the sake of balance but also based on a conversation with Samuel van der Bijl. There’s no room for personal attacks here, as it seems like a case of wishful thinking and misguided actions, not malicious actions. To think or to believe that Battistelli will turn out to be a good partner is rather naive.
“The FFPE are a well-meaning lot, and they certainly don’t have any truck with Battistelli bullshit.”
–Anonymous“I have no hard feelings,” I told Samuel, “nor did I intend to hurt anyone’s feelings, except perhaps the top-level EPO management, which has done enormous damage to many people’s lives.
“I view FFPE EPO not as malicious but as gullible, as it’s clear what plans the top-level EPO management had for FFPE all along, based on many documents which I studied.”
“Maybe it would interest you that although there are 2 SUEPO representatives on my floor.”
–FFPE EPO Chairman“FFPE EPO is not gullible at all,” Samuel told me. “There is a story behind the story and there are NO people with clean hands on either side of the conflict. For the record FFPE EPO does not have a conflict with anybody in the EPO but a difference of opinion with both sides. We have never and will never close the door to anybody willing to negotiate.
“Maybe it would interest you that although there are 2 SUEPO representatives on my floor. I have never in the entire process been approached by SUEPO to discuss the MoU and they consistently refused to come to the meetings as well. They cannot blame the FFPE to sign a document which we negotiated and which therefore is perfectly suitable to our needs.”
Based on documents from last year, SUEPO did give peace a chance, but EPO management did not. The EPO management was more interested in embracing a ‘soft’ union with conditions that favour the management, and that’s what it got at the end. As someone put it in the comments:
Well, well, well says….
BB has now his private FFPE union, after all… he may need some protection as well for negotiating his redundancy package! I heard that there are plenty of managers signing up with the FFPE, or is this just another rumour?
Here is a good comment about the impact of signing the MoU, whether intended or not:
Dear Mr. van der Bijl,
you may be a decent person, and the idea of signing a MoU is in itself not wrong at all.
But doing it in a moment in which Battistelli clearly needs to feed to the AC the narrative that progress is made on the social side in what will be a very difficult meeting for him on the 16 of March, seems totally inappropriate. I’m surprised you don’t realize you seem to be only used for Propaganda reasons.
Btw, someone above writes that “FFPE EPO does enjoy the full support to sign this MoU from one of the largest union federations FFPE represented at the EU commission, the EU council, the council of Europe, Eurocontrol etc.. and the Federal bureau of this Union Federation assisted in drafting and negotiation of the present MoU”.
Is this true?
The same kind of sentiments come from ‘Barbi’:
Congratulations on the bold move of reaching an understanding with BB who is someone with whome nobody els, not even the AC managed to reach an understanding!
At the same time, chances are that BB will go sooner rather than later and in the worst case, the MoU may be terminated. But, a bold move stays a bold move.
Clever, isn´t it? Congratulations!
Barbi
There was never a sincere effort to give SUEPO a fair deal. As one person recently put it: “Instead the focus of the administration seemed to have been to give only the appearance of a dialog by “doing a meeting”,” which basically means a lot of this ‘social dialogue’ of ‘union recognition’ was PR or theatre. It was supposed to give the impression of EPO being forthcoming and SUEPO being “angry” and “intolerant”, even unreasonable, unlike “good” FFPE.
There are some Dutch translation bits (we published a translation of this whole article before) in a couple of comments [1, 2], one of which noting: “In another passage, Battistelli refuses any external review of the disciplinary decisions” (hence he isn’t sincere in reforming anything, having arrogantly ignored disciplinary decisions).
One comment touched the validity of the MoU just signed:
Reading carefully Article 9 of the MoU on “Representativeness of the unions”, one can notice the presence of an “or” between the second and third bullet:
1. Subject to meeting the requirements set out in Article 7, the EPO shall recognise as representative the unions which meet the following criteria:
- they elect their officials in democratic and transparent elections;
- they present candidates in official elections with the purpose of having elected staff representatives OR
- they have elected staff representatives.
Yes, presenting candidates in official EPO elections (even if they fail to be elected, as was the case of the FFPE-EPO candidates during last elections in June 2014) is good enough to be representative, and to sign this MoU.
A tailor made criterion?
Noting correctly that Battistelli is a megalomaniac who would not tolerate any criticism or dissenting input from FFPE EPO, one person noted:
You took my comment away and I couldn’t have put it better!
@Sam van der Bijl. How can one be so naïf to even think of expressing an opinion on a network controlled by BB?! As soon as someone would dare addressing the FFPE-EPO Nomenklatura with “I don’t agree”, the BB-thugs will be carrying that someone away with the accusation of harassment. Mr Sam “BB” van der Bijl, I wonder if you are really believing in what you are doing, in the way you are doing it, or you are just happy to be in the grace of the tyrant. In both cases, that disqualifies you to represent me in any form of negotiation.
With regard to the affiliation and representation of FFPE-EPO at European level, maybe the readers would like to have a look at the affiliation of some branches of SUEPO at European as well as at international level, e.g. USF and EPSU
EPO staff cannot coexist with Battistelli and never co-existed with him (peacefully). He stuffed the management tier with his friends, so it only got worse over time.
Referring to SRs (staff representatives), the following comment alluded to Brimelow:
I find the current FFPE bashing problematic.
While I do find their general quietness problematic, and the timing of having agreed to the MoU at this time even more so, they did publish several opinions on the questionably legality of the different new guidelines, investigation guidelines,…
Nobody really cared reading about them.
And yes, FFPE did call for supporting the strikes, but refused to support “flexi strikes”.
I am not a member, nor do I intend to switch to “the other” union, but we do not need to bash them in this way.
They are a lot smaller, and as such have a lot less ressources available, also less experience.
We will see how Mr. BB will use the MoU.
Since the opinion of SR was already ignored, he now has another hurdle: the documents need to be slightly earlier on the table, so that the union can discuss it before it goes to the committees with SR representatives.
Thay may, if well coordinated,. give SR more time to prepare for their meetings.
We’ll see how it plays out. but I fear that the administration introduced by Miss Brimelow with their “here is our proposal, you have 48 hours until GAC/GCC meeting to give us your opinion” will not change…
Responding to the above, one person wrote:
This should not be problem since FFPE-EPO has only one opinion that of the ruler who feed them …..
Then, appropriately enough, FFPE’s grudge against SUEPO got brought up:
if only ! FFPE consistently shot on SUEPO in their few rather pathetic publications, pilling their venoms around on order of EPO top management.
See the last one they had hanging on walls at EPO where FFPE says in a nutshell (without knowing anything about the substance) that if SUEPO officials have been sanctioned, they must have done something….
Again FFPE is a union that supports the EPO management. nothing more nothing less.
And yes Mr van der Bijl some documents have been forwarded by FFPE officials in the defense file of the EPO vs SUEPO.
This shows your pathetic level and the blatant abuse of the word union for your activities
“Shame on those representatives who sell out on such an important matter,” George Brock-Nannestad wrote. Or in full:
I think that the saddest provision of the MoU is “Article 13, 6. In case agreement is reached,…………………………………. The signatory unions shall in this case not support or encourage individual litigation actions.”
Litigation must be seen as a last resort action (well, there does not seem to be any other) that a wronged employee can take, and this is when such a person needs all support possible from colleagues. But now such a person is turned into a pariah. How very inhuman! Shame on those representatives who sell out on such an important matter.
George Brock-Nannestad
As it turns out, next month Samuel will no longer be the Chairman of FFPE EPO. He told me this himself:
I can not be a candidate for the position of chairman of FFPE-EPO for another term because our statutes maximize this to 2 terms unlike another big union in the EPO. From April onwards another chairman will take my place with no doubt the same energy.
This means that FFPE EPO’s direction can change very soon, as can the policies and the stance on Battistelli (if he is still at the Office at that time). Battistelli, as we showed here before, is already dead man walking. He will try to use FFPE EPO as a bargaining card to salvage his career. As this new comment put it: “Any decent union leader would not have signed such a MoU. And any decent union leader would have chosen a better time to sign a MoU (were the said MoU one that one could sign without loosing ones face). It is a disgrace.”
One comment there challenged Battistelli’s credibility, stating:
From the Article published in Le Monde, 7 April 2015:
“He even agreed to show Le Monde his employment contract and disclose his salary, “about 250,000 Euros a year.”
From the Article in nrc.nl, 3 March 2015
“Ik verdien 300.000 euro per jaar.”
Now, which is it Mr. Battistelli?
Did your salary increase of 20% in less that one year? With the mess you are putting the office in? And who approved such an increase?
Or is it rather that these are just random values fed to the press to calm them down?
Interestingly, the fact that these values increase with the time – and the pressure you are subject to -, suggests that we are far from the real value …
The web does not forget – and forgive – anything, Mr. Battistelli.
The salary will be the subject of a future post.
The latest comment (at the time of writing) is a sort of hypothetical set of statements:
JK : If I went to work for the EPO, the first thing I’d do would be to join a trade union.
AC: As can be seen in our history, the only answer to a powerful EPO President is a powerful trade union. BB always tells you that he got the EPO more efficient through hard work, ask him whose?
Press: Every AC delegation can consider themselves dishonest who only lives upon the labour of the EPO staff and don’t care who occupies the throne.
BB: One of these days you’ll see the light and we’ll have the trade unions in. Just a matter of time they will sign the MoU.
EB: The Brussels office is the most effective place to preach the gospel of unionism.
VP1: The problem with the EPO unions today is that there aren’t enough of them. The FFPE-EPO could come in useful.
SUEPO: We have come too far, struggled too long, sacrificed too much and have too much left to do, to allow that which we have achieved for the good of all to be swept away without a fight. And we have not forgotten how to fight.
Press: The only effective answer to prevent for organized greed is organized labour.
FFPE-EPO: A trade union is not a fee-for-service organization, it is a family.
SUEPO: There are two kinds of trade unions, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.
EPO staff: We don’t want a trade union or a democratic election without freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly. Without a democratic election, whereby people choose and remove their leader, there is no method of securing human rights against the EPO. No democracy without human rights, no human rights without democracy, and no trade union rights without either. That is our belief; that is our creed.
The key part there is probably “trade union or a democratic election without freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly.” Recall what we wrote about ballots less than a day ago. Eponia is not a democracy and it still doesn’t act like one. Even a rich (but ruthless) Monarchy like Brunei’s isn’t as embarrassing as this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Democracy at the EPO or at least a vote of confidence (in a confidential voting setting) would show lackluster support for Battistelli and help highlight his much more capable successors
Summary: A vote of confidence — a vote on President or something along those lines — may be sorely needed in order to establish or restore the perception of adherence to the rule of law and mutual respect (top-down) at the European Patent Office, which is clearly at a boiling point under the Battistelli regime
WHEN the EPO‘s President treats delegates like children and only stops short of outright smacking them in public you know you’re not dealing with an ordinary manager (or President) but with someone who probably needs an early(ier) retirement. This isn’t a behaviour suitable for any modern (21st century/present era) leader, only for a monarch (way back in the days when monarchy presided/sat on top of a parliamentary system, if any existed at all). Illegally suspending judges outside one's authority? Come on, who are we kidding here? It’s a textbook example of gross overreach. Comparing one's opposition to Nazis and criminals (Godwin's Law notwithstanding) doesn’t magically change the Office rules or the rule of law.
Battistelli and his confidants currently use so-called ‘ballots’ to suppress participation in strikes [1, 2]. As we previously showed, non-participation in the process would be falsely interpreted by this regime as lack of interest in a strike, and there’s no assurance of confidentiality in the process. That’s the ideal recipe for a bogus, rigged voting session.
By no means do we suggest that the strikes shouldn’t be taken seriously; it’s just the ballot that’s a mockery, and it’s induced ad hoc (rules be damned! Or made up on the spot). Here is a drafted agreement on strikes (Section J as of 2015 — a draft proposal for a “framework agreement” (“accord cadre”) that would regulate interactions between SUEPO and Management). This is what SUEPO did not get the EPO to agree on:
J. INDUSTRIAL ACTIONS
1. The EPO recognizes that employees have the right to participate in industrial actions without fear of retribution or sanctions. The EPO may make reasonable deduction of emoluments corresponding to any labour withheld in the course of a strike.
2. The Union is entitled to call for and organize general or local industrial actions, including but not limited to strikes. Industrial actions shall be undertaken only after a positive ballot by the Union respective members. The Union is required to ensure that ballot is witnessed by an independent observer who will prepare a report on the ballot. The EPO is to be provided with a copy of this report. Industrial actions shall be considered approved, if a quorum of at least 30% of the Union members cast a vote, and a simple majority of the votes cast are in favour of industrial action. The organisation and modalities of the ballot are at the discretion of the Union.
3. Paragraph J(2) applies mutatis mutandis to the local sections of the Union, whereby, any industrial actions so organised are limited to the site represented by that local section.
4. The Union, or local section, shall inform the President of any industrial action so planned. Barring force majeure or other serious cause, the Union shall inform the President in advance of a strike, with a period of notice of no less than 5 days.
5. The President may requisition personnel, but not more than absolutely necessary for:
- ensuring the security of the EPO premises or persons;
- guaranteeing the minimum maintenance of facilities and equipment, so that work can resume immediately after the strike has ended;
- providing essential services to the EPO’s customers, to secure rights that would otherwise be lost (incoming patent applications).
6. For SUEPO and its members, this agreement, in particular paragraphs J(1) and (2), supersedes any other general provision regulating the right to organise and participate in industrial actions. This agreement does not invalidate or otherwise affect those provisions in so far as SUEPO and its members are not concerned.
After the strikes/s (long in the planning), assuming that Battistelli will be pushed further away to the end of the plank/cliff (the Council is not on his side but overwhelmingly against him based on our sources), succession needs to be considered.
Who is suitable to lead the European Patent Office? Who would prove popular among staff, charismatic among European politicians (not abusing them while drunk on power), willing to listen to critics, and not too focused on just profit/gains in terms of number of patents granted (lowering of quality or patent dilution)? Who can restore the pride of the European Patent Office, to make both its staff pleased and European citizens receptive?
“I hope that the heat increases till the bad crew has to leave,” wrote to us a person who is a FOSS figure, nothing whatsoever to do with the EPO or even patents. “But that will not be the whole fight, the choice of replacement is just as important.”
“And in the long run,” added this person, “the work with the EPO material is by far the most important to my eyes because it is a factor in determining software patents in Europe or not. Sadly, there are some traps in the TTIP to get them in the back door.”
We will mention some of that in future posts. Benjamin Henrion of the FFII wrote about it and spoke about this a lot as of late.
Reform at the EPO will definitely take time (not the Battistelli regime’s ‘reform’, but the detoxification after a Battistelli-led era), so let’s consider this one step at the time. The VPs, who are blindly (or out of fear) loyal to the President, are already hated by their staff, who leak documents that embarrass them. The staff (at least the technical people) wants change.
I am increasingly getting ‘clever’ questions such as this one. Managing IP asked: “If Battistelli goes, who would you like to replace him, Roy?”
The decision should be staff’s, and if there is democracy at the EPO, then the staff will at least have a say (like veto powers or ballots). That’s just common sense. If Eponia acts like an independent country, then it needs to start acting like one.
I began researching potential replacements for Battistelli a while back when some people wrote about the subject. In FOSS circles, in which I find my ‘comfort zone’ (I’m primarily a FOSS person, also by trade), it was suggested that I soon write names of people who might be suitable reformists who are tolerant of criticism and antagonists. Most importantly, software patents should be off the agenda in Europe, in the spirit of the EPC. If any our readers know of anyone who openly opposes software patents and has the qualification to run for Office leadership, please let me know soon as it might be the right time to show which better people exist for the job — people who will listen to staff and appease critics over overpatenting (or patent maximalism, which basically leads to patents on life, algorithms and so on), in spite of economics that consistently prove it detrimental to entire fields as a whole.
Among the defenders (or apologists) of Battistelli, one can expect the usual tactics which follow the logic of, nothing would change if Battistelli left, so let him stay…
The EPO, said this recent remark, “like institutions have always homegrown zealous servants aplenty. They’d offer their zeal to anyone being bossy enough, I guess.”
One can go further and say that those who are still afraid of Battistelli (because they think he is going to stay) will remain on the defensive, not the offensive (riskier). The Council needs courage right now. So does the staff at the Office.
“Among the defenders (or apologists) of Battistelli, one can expect the usual tactics which follow the logic of, nothing would change if Battistelli left, so let him stay…”We still have plenty of embarrassing things to show. With recent illnesses at the house (lasted a week and a half almost) and too little sleep, it just wasn’t the best time to tackle these issues, but expect a lot of coverage in the coming week. Battistelli cannot survive. He got himself glued to a corner. Maybe when we debate the successor of Battistelli (a subject of a future bunch of articles, to come in large volume after several other items that keep our drafts ‘backlog’ clogged up) more people who work at the EPO will recognise the inevitable and act accordingly. It’s Battistelli and those who still stand behind him who should be on the defensive now.
Based on an automated translation of an article which adds little or no new information except this last part, Battistelli’s days are numbered. To quote this automated translation (if someone can translate this entire article for us, that would help): “Indeed already circulating on the name of a possible successor to the official tip of the German board member Christoph Ernst from the Federal Ministry of Justice.”
Christoph Ernst is no stranger to us. Over a year ago he received a letter from Tilman Müller-Stoy (former Microsoft and Amazon employee, mentioned here before in [1, 2, 3], not to be confused for Winfried Tilmann, who has a past rife with UPC scandals) about the lack of judicial independence at the European Patent Office.
As Dugie Standeford of IP Watch recalls: “The suspension, and Battistelli’s plan for performance-based remuneration, prompted a letter from Bardehle Pagenberg (Munich) attorney Tilman Müller-Stoy to Christoph Ernst, ministerial director in Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice and the country’s representative to the AC (linked to in an IPKat 9 December posting). In it, Müller-Stoy voiced deep concern “about the judicial independence at the EPO and about the EPO’s worldwide reputation.””
This shows that Christoph Ernst cannot be a stranger to Battistelli’s abuses and probably hasn’t had enough of that Kool-Aid from Battistelli’s fountains.
As a reminder, last year we wrote an article after a reader had told us that — along with Heiko Maas — the German Ministry of Justice (its growing biased on UPC notwithstanding) is “responsible for oversight of the EPO through its national delegate on the EPO’s Administrative Council, Dr. Christoph Ernst.”
Ernst is listed in this list of AC representatives (warning: epo.org link) and this recent short CV [PDF] says:
DR. CHRISTOPH ERNST, Head of Directorate (Ministerialdirigent), Federal Ministry of Justice, DE
Christoph, born in 1954 in Bremen – Initially worked as an attorney in Bremen, focusing on commercial and economic law as well as tax law; in 1989 obtained the additional qualification of “specialist lawyer in tax law”. – Joined the Federal Ministry of Justice in the Directorate General for Commercial and Economic Law. – Since May 2010: Head of Directorate in the Federal Ministry of Justice, focusing mainly on general economic law, new technologies and intellectual property. – Head of the German delegation in the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office (EPO) and member of the Board of the Administrative Council. – Germany’s representative in the European preparatory bodies on the EU patent (Select Committee at the EPO and Preparatory Committee for the European Patent Jurisdiction). – Head of the German delegation in the Administrative Council of the EU Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). – Furthermore, German representative at the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Can Ernst steer the Office in a positive direction after all the damage caused by Battistelli and his circle? Here are our thoughts.
Upsides: as an economist (ish) in the sense of economic law background, he might be able to assess the economic impact of overpatenting — a subject many renowned and award-winning economists often speak of. This old page from the Patent Office of Latvia describes him as “Deputy Director General, Division of Commercial and Economic Law, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection” (Justice and Consumer Protection sound better than benign).
Downsides: not a scientist (at least not academically or by education), played a role in the UPC (back when it was referred to as “EU patent”), represented Germany in the now-disgraced WIPO (though it needn’t be held against him in a guilt-by-association fashion).
Are any other candidates being discussed in the context of Battistelli handing over (or forced to hand over) the baton? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA