01.02.17

365 Days Later, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas Remains Silent and Thus Complicit in EPO Abuses on German Soil

Posted in Site News at 2:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

How appt [sic]…

Summary: The utter lack of participation, involvement or even intervention by German authorities serve to confirm that the government of Germany is very much complicit in the EPO’s abuses, by refusing to do anything to stop them

January 3^rd (tomorrow) marks 365 days since the letter below (due to leap year) and we are hardly surprised that Heiko Maas, a rather controversial German Justice Minister (for various reasons well beyond and outside the realm of patents), is as useless as a brick. He seems to be perfectly fine with serious abuses happening in Germany, perhaps because his political party has some higher agenda or something at stake here.

We previously wrote about serious if not severe dysfunctions in the the EPO’s justice system (so-called 'disciplinary procedures'), which are akin to the Stasi (or “gestapo” as a Dutch politician called it, as it’s also akin to a "reign of terror" in his own words).

The following is text from Minister of State Prof. Dr. Winfried Bausback, who was mentioned before as he had been in touch with other politicians whom Dr. Elizabeth Hardon decided to approach. In the following letter, Heiko 'don't see, don't speak, don't listen' Maas is mentioned as well (emphasis below). The letter is dated January 4^th, but the discussion with Maas predates Christmas by exactly one week. To quote:

Bavarian State Minister of Justice – 80097 Munich

Dr. Elizabeth Hardon
An der Hauptfeuerwache 4
80331 Munich

Your Ref., your communication of
su15109ml – 0.4.2 of 7.12.2015

Please quote in reply
Our Ref., our communication of
D5 – 3620 E – I – 13807/2015

Date
4 January 2016

Demonstration by the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) on 10 December 2015 before the Palace of Justice

Dear Dr. Hardon,

Many thanks for your letter in reference, in which you provided further details with regard to the background to the SUEPO demonstration on 10 December in front of the Munich Palace of Justice. I can readily empathise with the burden being placed on you and your colleagues by the situation at
the European Patent Office which you describe. I must however ask for your understanding inasmuch as I am unable to voice an opinion in these matters, given that the Bavarian State Ministry and the Free State of Bavaria have no jurisdiction in this instance. As you are aware, the European Patent
Office (EPO) is an international organization with its own constitutional legal framework. Germany is only one of 38 contracting states, and is represented in the administrative bodies of the EPO solely by the Federal Republic.

On 8 October 2015 the Federal Government stated, in a reply to the written question submitted by a Bundestag deputy (BT-Drs 18/6301 (new), p. 23 f.), that it viewed a good working atmosphere at the European Patent Office as a very important concern. In order to improve the situation, in particular,
the climate with regard to discussion and negotiation, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) is said to have instigated a revival of the social dialogue in the Administrative Council of the EPO, and the Ministry appears to be actively concerned in improving the situation.

In the context of a discussion with the Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Mr. Heiko Maas, on 18 December 2015, I expressly raised the issues concerned. The Federal Minister of Justice has given his assurance that he will also be engaging with the issues which you are currently raising.

Best regards
Prof. Dr. Winfried Bausback, MdL

Where is Maas? He has done absolutely nothing (zilch, nada) about the EPO scandals, which damages not just Germany’s reputation on matter such as justice within Germany but in the whole of Europe (as the vast majority of EPO employees are not German). A retired German judge has already compared this kind of attitude towards the EPO to that of the US government in relation to Guantánamo Bay.

For completeness, the letter in German (original) is shown below. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Battistelli’s Idea of ‘Independent’ ‘External’ ‘Social’ ‘Study’ is Something to BUY From Notorious Firm PwC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Like Microsoft ‘studies’ or EPO ‘justice’…

Summary: The sham which is the so-called ‘social’ ‘study’ as explained by the Central Staff Committee last year, well before the results came out

WRITING ABOUT THE Social Study Award Committee, last year the staff representatives at the EPO contacted the Chinchilla Man of the Administrative Council. They tried to make him aware of the fact that the EPO’s ‘social’ ‘study’ would be a sham. And as correctly envisaged at the time, it was indeed a sham ‘study’ produced by a firm of legal bullies, i.e. Battistelli’s kind of fellas’. The outcome of this bogus ‘study’ we covered in the following articles:

• Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Leaked Document Shows PwC’s Dishonesty and Misrepresentation of EPO Staff
• Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: Survey Comparison Shows Serious Deterioration and Efforts by PwC to Disguise the Truth
• Battistelli-Commissioned PwC ‘Study’: The Raw Outcome Shows Distortion of the Facts at the EPO’s Notorious ‘Social Conference’
• EPO Caricature: EPO-Funded PwC on EPO Happiness
• The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

It was also around this time, back when we were hit by a lot of DDOS attacks [1, 2, 3], that IP addresses from PwC's network got automatically banned for knocking too hard on our servers. The Central Staff Committee wrote the following letter:

To the Chairman and
the Heads of Delegations
of the Administrative Council
of the European Patent Organisation

Social Study Award Committee

Dear Mr Kongstad,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Office, through PD43, has invited the CSC to nominate an observer in the Social Study Award Committee.

We consider this a first, tiny step towards restoring social dialogue. Nevertheless, we would like to draw your attention on a fundamental issue:

How does the Administrative Council (and its Board under Article 28 EPC) intend to ensure that the study is independent and free from possible undue influence from the President?

As mentioned in CA 101/15, the Council has decided to launch an “independent external social study” “in close co-operation with the President”. We would like to stress that the expression “independent external social study” is antithetic with the proposal of it being organised “in close cooperation with the President”. It is difficult to see how the President, who is the one who initiated and carried out all these reforms, should be considered the best and only person to conduct this exercise, which would de facto end in a “self-appraisal”.

If a social study is to be a pillar in the resolution of the on-going conflict, its execution and results must be credible to all stakeholders – staff included. For this purpose, all stakeholders (Administrative Council, EPO Management, staff, trade unions, staff representation) must be involved actively from the earliest stage and throughout the whole process. Accordingly:

---

- We would expect the Administrative Council (through a subcommittee thereof) to participate in the Award Committee and in the Steering Committee of the Social Study. Moreover, it should be the Council, and not the Office, to be in the “driver’s seat” during this exercise.

- The Staff Representation and the Trade Unions should be actively involved and not merely an observer.

It is wholly inappropriate to involve the staff representation as a mere observer in the Award Committee, and to state – as PD43 did — that the selected contractor would have total independence in carrying out the study following “established international standards”. If the President is the only party giving input to the contractor, in particular drafting the terms of reference and the technical specifications, the social study will be biased already before the actual selection of the contractor. Also, it remains to be seen how the contractor chosen can remain impartial in respect of the Administration who pays the bill, if there are no other supervising entities involved.

We urge you to take seriously these concerns, so as to prevent an expensive and tragic failure of what could be a first step in resolving the current conflict.

Yours sincerely,

The Central Staff Committee

We confirm that the this letter was legitimately decided and produced by the Central Staff Committee¹

______
¹ Pursuant to Article 35(3) ServRegs, the Central Staff Committee shall consist of ten full and ten alternate members.

The CSC presently consists of 17 members, because two have resigned in Dec 2014 and one has been dismissed in Jan 2016 (against the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee).

One full member of the CSC has been downgraded in Jan 2016 (against the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee). In fact, the Office has launched investigations and disciplinary procedures against nearly all SRs, which further caused health problems.

[...]

cc.:
Mr B. Battistelli; The President of the EPO
PD43

“PD43″ (above) is Bergot — the one responsible for spearheading (at Battistelli’s behalf) bogus ‘disciplinary’ proceedings that are actually union-busting endeavors.

Quite a few months have passed since this bogus ‘study’ came out and we rarely hear about it anymore. We hope that delegates are not gullible enough to treat it as anything other than Battistelli propaganda, composed by a rogue firm at his instructions/command. It’s not independent, it’s external only in the payment sense (payments made to the outside), it is antisocial (staff representatives denied participation), and it is definitely not a “study” in any sense other than the political sense. It was another gutter-level low for Battistelli’s regime. It proved that Battistelli was incapable of handling the truth. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Europe Should Listen to SMEs Regarding the UPC, as Battistelli, Team UPC and the Select Committee Lie About It

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

European Digital SME Alliance is legitimate (grossroots), not AstroTurfing like Team UPC

Summary: Another example of UPC promotion from within the EPO (a committee dedicated to UPC promotion), in spite of everything we know about opposition to the UPC from small businesses (not the imaginary ones which Team UPC claims to speak ‘on behalf’ of)

YESTERDAY we wrote about how the Chairman of the Select Committee promoted the UPC based on false claims. It turns out it wasn’t a one-time thing as this document form the Central Staff Committee [PDF] contains yet another example of misleading if not false claims. The transcript in German says: “Es ist mir eine Freude, Ihnen und dem Engeren Ausschuss zum Abschluss der Verhandlungen zum Einheitlichen Patent als Vertreter des Personals gratulieren zu dürfen. Die Patentprüfer, die zukünftig das Einheitliche Patent prüfen werden, sind hervorragend ausgebildete Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler. Viele davon sind promoviert und haben respektable Erfahrung in Forschung und Industrie gesammelt. In ihrer Arbeit sehen sich die Kollegen streng dem EPÜ verpflichtet. Und gerade deswegen freuen wir uns, dass die Artikel 142 bis 149 EPÜ nun mit Leben gefüllt werden. Auch die IGEPA hat sich immer für das Einheitliche Patent ausgesprochen.

“It’s unreasonable to expect that an Office which is run by a notorious tyrant can produce something which serves the public rather than Battistelli and his corporate ilk.”“In ihrer täglichen Arbeit leben die Kolleginnen und Kollegen den europäischen Gedanken. Die Wirtschaftslandschaft in Europa ist geprägt durch kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen. Ein starkes und sorgfältig geprüftes Einheitliches Patent kann dazu beitragen, dass nicht nur die Großindustrie, sondern auch die KMUs davon profitieren. Leider müssen wir beobachten, dass für die Arbeit in den dreiköpfigen Prüfungsabteilungen kaum noch Zeit bleibt. Die Effizienzsteigerungen, von denen Ihnen hier regelmäßig berichtet wird, haben eben auch ihre Schattenseiten.

“Allerdings mag es ja durchaus in Ihrem Interesse sein, meine Damen und Herren, die Struktur des europäischen Patentsystems und der Europäischen Patentorganisation anders zu gestalten. Sie haben mit Artikel 172 EPÜ die Möglichkeit, eine Konferenz der Vertragsstaaten einzuberufen. Vielleicht genügt auch schon eine Konferenz der Minister der Vertragsstaaten nach Artikel 4a EPÜ, die eigentlich schon hätte stattfinden müssen, weil sie ja laut EPÜ mindestens alle fünf Jahre stattfinden muss. Ich kann Ihnen versichern, dass die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dann zu dem Erfolg des Einheitlichen Patents beitragen werden und spreche Ihnen abschließend meinen herzlichen Glückwunsch zu dem erreichten Abschluss aus.”

Automated translations of these paragraph suggest that the above admits “the economic landscape in Europe is characterised by small- and medium-sized enterprises. A strong and carefully tested Unitary Patent can help not only the large industry, but also benefit SMEs.”

However, a year later we know that nothing has changed and the UPC would harm everyone but large corporations (some of them foreign) and patent trolls.

If Team Battistelli is so eager to make the UPC a reality in spite of what the European public keeps saying, then it’s clearly an antidemocratic institution whose nature we shall continue to expose. It’s unreasonable to expect that an Office which is run by a notorious tyrant can produce something which serves the public rather than Battistelli and his corporate ilk. There’s an emergent pattern here — one that EPO staff is too familiar with by now. If EPO becomes an instrument of domination or occupation, then it needs to be overhauled, starting from the top. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

01.01.17

Video: French State Secretary for Digital Economy Speaks Out Against Benoît Battistelli at Battistelli’s PR Event

Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 4:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One among many politicians, including several French ones, who are fed up with Battistelli

Summary: Uploaded by SUEPO earlier today was the above video, which shows how last year’s party (actually 2015) was spoiled for Battistelli by the French State Secretary for Digital Economy, Axelle Lemaire, echoing the French government’s concern about union busting etc. at the EPO (only to be rudely censored by Battistelli's 'media partner')

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

When EPO Vice-President, Who Will Resign Soon, Made a Mockery of the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Leaked letter from Willy Minnoye/management to the people who are supposed to oversee EPO management

Willy Minnoye is leaving quite soon (well before his term’s end) as he already gained great notoriety within the EPO when he became his master's voice on Dutch TV.

Minnoye’s blind loyalty to Battistelli is not news; maybe this kind of obedience is how he worked his way up within the institution, but either way, a year ago — lest we forget — he tried to impose blind loyalty to Battistelli on his colleagues as well. We heard some rumours about this at the time, but now we also have a letter of his (or “the management of the EPO”), which we publish below (with our Ed[itorial] comments):

Letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

From: the management of the EPO

We have been made aware of a draft decision some delegations intend to present to the next March 2016 Administrative Council session.

We would like to share with you our concerns. We take this exceptional step as this is commensurate to the seriousness of the consequences of the draft resolution, if adopted. [Ed: this means, if you actually do your job, watch out!]

Firstly, we would like to point out that we are committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation [Ed: a lie; they're are committed to Battistelli and his UPC fantasy]. To that respect, we have supported and implemented the reforms and new policies stemming from the 5 roadmaps unanimously adopted by the AC in 2011 and 2014. These reforms have already borne fruit and the Organisation is now healthier than ever [Ed: huge, massive lie!] and is equipped to deliver first class services (Unitary patent, quality, timeliness…). [Ed: and terrible patent quality, low staff morale, brain drain etc.] At the same time the reforms have increased the long term sustainability of the Organisation [Ed: no, it’s suffering "a crisis"], while maintaining a very attractive package and excellent working conditions for its staff [Ed: getting worse all the time]. This healthy situation benefits directly the European economy, the Member States, and EPO’s staff. [Ed: no, it benefits directly foreign megacorporations]

Concerns from the staff occur in all countries and Organisations in period of substantial transformation [Ed: no examples given]. Despite this, the staff is currently highly performing and committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation. [Ed: if one ignores the many protests, strikes, and brain drain]

We are aware that Officials of the EPO are being put directly or indirectly under pressure [Ed: they are not the victims, they are the bullies]. The Office and more and more of its officials at all levels of the hierarchy including elected staff representatives have been and are subject to defamation campaigns internally and externally, personal threats and harassment [Ed: reversal of narratives/roles here].

In that respect it is the Office’s duty of care to address the situation and proceed under the EPO’s regulatory framework, to establish the facts and when needed, engage in disciplinary procedures [Ed: they're not disciplinary procedures but union-busting campaigns]. The respondents have regulatory means of redress including the request to a review of the decisions [Ed: no, justice at the EPO is non-existent].

Under the current circumstances, we urge you to consider that the proposal submitted to the AC will undermine the position of all managers to successfully pursue the changes initiated in the road maps as decided in the Administrative Council and will create unfortunate precedents which will jeopardize seriously the management of the Organisation and its capacity to ensure its operations effectively now and in the future. [Ed: the AC never asked for unions to be crushed; au contraire]

We fully support the Organisation’s mission and its fundamental values [Ed: except when violating the EPC and national laws? Then ignoring court orders?]. Therefore we urge the Administrative Council, before taking any decision on the matter to give careful consideration to this letter:
- to remain firm on ethics and not tolerate misconduct [Ed: i.e. they should fire Battistelli and all his goons]
- to focus on the great achievements and improve the positive image of the Organisation [Ed: keeping Team Battistelli in tact would only further damage the EPO's image]
- to endorse the on-going initiatives of the Office in the social dialogue (recognition of unions, social study, current review of regulations, social conference) [Ed: it’s all fake, staged, and paid for; yellow unions earning 'recognition' is worse than nothing]

We are convinced that the implementation of the reforms is a solid basis for a strong EPO fit for the future. [Ed: these 'reforms' are the implementation of autocracy, which puts the legitimacy of the entire Organisation at risk]

For those unable to see what’s wrong with the above, remember the role which the Council is supposed to fulfill, as per the EPC.

As SUEPO put it at the time, “[i]t has been brought to our attention that VP1 has launched an initiative to produce a pledge of allegiance signed by directors in DG1.”

This is so incredibly ludicrous for reasons we mentioned at the time.

“We wonder,” SUEPO said, “given the current circumstances and the letter sent to all delegations of the Administrative Council by the Board 28 – if being “invited” to declare their support/loyalty to Mr Battistelli might at the same time risk being seen as disloyal to the Organisation.”

The Organisation is supposed to boss Battistelli, not be bossed by him, but roles appear to have been reversed and Battistelli now hands some nice 'gifts' to his 'bosses' that are cheaper to 'buy'.

SUEPO said at the time that it “reaffirms its strong commitment to work as a responsible social partner representing around half of EPO staff, to not only restore social peace within the Office, but also to repair illegal (implementation of) reforms and start to restore both the trust in and the reputation of our Organisation.”

Minnoye’s departure is one small step towards detoxification. A lot more people from Team Battistelli will no doubt continue to do damage in an effort to salvage/rescue their naked emperor (rather than simply abandon him). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

No Separation of Powers or Justice at the EPO: Reign of Terror by Battistelli Explained in Letter to the Administrative Council

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

An “investigation in this manner is contrary to the principles of due process as established in ILOAT,” argues the Staff Committee

Summary: In violation of international labour laws, Team Battistelli marches on and engages in a union-busting race against the clock, relying on immunity to keep this gravy train rolling before an inevitable crash

THE EPO‘s management is now being called "reign of terror" by Dutch politicians. One of them also called the Investigative Unit [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], which we covered here before, the “gestapo”. No mincing of words is necessary when a horrible Battistelli-led regime goes as far as it has.

Someone among the many recipients of Staff Committee publications recently put this document on our lap [PDF]. It obviously merits attention, even if belatedly; Battistelli and his henchwoman Bergot (Principal Director 4.3) already received a copy, so this wasn’t done behind their backs. We wish to highlight one bit from this 20-page (including cover letter) review of the investigation and disciplinary procedures:

- The hearing of the accused person typically takes place towards the end of the investigation, often after a significant number of witnesses have been heard and hundreds of pages of material have been accumulated. Finding the accused person innocent at this stage would mean these efforts have been wasted. In other words, the procedure is conducted in a manner which encourages the investigative unit to find the “subject” guilty.

- The interview with the “subject” is not conducted as a neutral and impartial “fact-finding” exercise in which the presumption of innocence is respected contrary to Art. 6 Circ 342. In practice, a presumption of guilt appears to prevail and the interview is typically conducted in the manner of an aggressive interrogation with the aim of coming to a confession. It seems that the investigators are trained in and employ the “Reid technique”, (see Wikipedia: Reid interrogation technique).

- The accused person is typically informed in a vague and imprecise manner of the original allegations, contrary to Art. 15(1) Circ. 342. The identity of the accuser is not necessarily disclosed. This renders it difficult if not impossible to prepare for an “interview” and thus impairs the right to defence recognised in Art. 6(2) Circ 342. Conducting an investigation in this manner is contrary to the principles of due process as established in ILOAT jurisprudence (cf. Judgments Nos. 3200, …….).

- If the original allegations are weak, the interview seems to serve as a “fishing expedition” to find further material which can be used as a basis for raising fresh charges against the subject. It is not uncommon to find additional allegations being incrementally added to the charge sheet as the investigation progresses.

- Any refusal to comply with the instructions of the investigators, even in cases where these instructions lack an identifiable legal basis or are otherwise disproportionate, is considered to constitute “non-cooperation” which is subsequently deemed to merit additional disciplinary action.

The position paper also says that “it is apparent that existing institutional arrangements are insufficient to ensure the independence and impartiality of the investigative process and involve conflicts of interest which have the potential to prejudice the outcome and/or undermine the impartiality and integrity of any investigation.”

This point, incidentally, the ILO recently agreed on w.r.t. the Disciplinary Committee. This kind of bunk ‘justice’, often in violation of international rules/norms, makes Battistelli’s Eponia a pariah state in need of disciplining (the management). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

FFPE-EPO is a Zombie (if Not Dead) Yellow Union Whose Only de Facto Purpose Has Been Attacking the EPO’s Staff Union

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A new year’s reminder that the EPO has only one legitimate union, the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO), whereas FFPE-EPO serves virtually no purpose other than to attack SUEPO, more so after signing a deal with the devil (Battistelli)

SOMEONE recently sent us a copy of a report on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) [PDF], which we had written about earlier that year. The report is not secret; in fact, a lot of EPO staff already saw it and here it is as HTML:

What is wrong with the EPO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)?

Introduction
In March 2015 the Administrative Council encouraged SUEPO to enter into tri-lateral talks with the Council and the President to come to a recognition of the Unions as a social partner. Other topics such as the reforms of the last years were excluded from the discussion. During the talks (to be concluded by the end of the year) the reforms were to continue.

SUEPO exists since 40 years. It represents about 50% of staff. “Talks” should not be necessary for the administration to recognize its existence. Union recognition talks furthermore
do not address any of the real problems facing staff. Under pressure from Mr Kongstad (Chair of the Council) who insisted that these talks were “only a start”, SUEPO nevertheless agreed, also since such talks at least provide access to the Council.

The result is known: Mr Battistelli¹ sent the Investigative Unit after his would-be “social partner” on the basis of vexatious and absurd accusations, thereby demonstrating bad faith. When questioned about the investigations during one of the meetings, Mr Battistelli cynically asked why we felt concerned. Under such circumstances meaningful talks are not possible and SUEPO pulled out. However, a small staff union (about 75 members) in The Hague did sign the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

In its March 2016 meeting the Council requested Mr Battistelli “to achieve, within the framework of the tripartite negotiations, an MoU simultaneously with both trade unions, which would have no pre-conditions or exclude any topics from future discussions.” With the disciplinary sanctions against 3 SUEPO officials still standing and 3 others still under investigation [Editor: 4 of them have been punished already, 3 dismissed], we do not see how any MoU could be achieved. But the investigations are not the only hindrance, the MoU proposed by the EPO also shows the bad faith of the administration. Below we list some of the most obvious deficiencies.

1. The MoU stresses (it is mentioned three times) that the unions “shall be bound by the legal framework applicable to the EPO”. That legal framework as it now stands contains strike regulations that have been judged illegal, and various other regulations that are highly controversial (staff committee elections, investigation guidelines, sick leave and invalidity regulations, new career). It is clear that SUEPO cannot sign up to such regulations.

2. The EPO legal framework (Service Regulations, Circulars, Guidelines) can be changed unilaterally by the Council and/or by the President. Signing a MoU that obliges the Staff Union

_____________
¹ In the one case where we have been informed about identity of the complainant it was Ms Bergot (PD HR and right-hand of the President). In the other cases we were not informed about the complainant, raising the strong suspicion that these were also initiated by Ms Bergot.

---

to respect Regulations which can be subsequently changed on a unilateral basis amounts to signing a blank check.

3. The MoU does not have much to offer for the unions: some office space, two mass e-mails per year, the right to hold general assemblies outside core hours – all of which the unions had before Mr Battistelli took it away.

4. Art. 4 MoU stipulates that “union activities shall in no way be prejudicial to the person concerned”. The wording of this Article is equivalent to Art. 34(2) of the ServRegs² for the staff representatives. Staff representatives are nevertheless being sanctioned by the President who simply denies that the disciplinary measures imposed have any connection with staff representation activities. There is no reason that this will change with the MoU.

More generally: what is the value of an agreement concluded between two parties, if one of the two parties considers itself not to be bound by any regulations and hides behind its immunity when caught breaching the law?

5. The MoU is silent on what will happen in case no agreement can be reached. But the wording gives some hints. Art. 11(1) of the MoU states that the President shall inform the
unions what items are to be the subject of consultation. According to Art. 11(3) MoU the unions may inform the President which items they wish to have discussed. The final list shall be established in mutual agreement. And who decides if there is no agreement? The answer is in Art. 13(4): “the agenda shall be set by the President”. In other words: the MoU foresees just another consultation process, the topics of which are dictated by the President and the results of which may be ignored by the President.

6. The devil is in the details. There are many more details that need to be questioned. For example: existing rules and (past) decisions are explicitly excluded from the negotiation process (Art. 11(4) MoU), so signing this MoU means accepting all Mr Battistelli’s reforms. The MoU requires the Union to act “in the general interest of staff” (Art. 3(2) MoU). But who will decide what is in the interest of staff? MoUs normally foresee a minimum level of staff adherence, for example 5% in the EU agreement, as a pre-condition for a recognized Union to be considered as representative. The EPO-MoU does not. This means that SUEPO, representing 50% of staff, is considered by management just as representative as any other Union, even one which would represent only 1% of staff.

The alternative – ignored
SUEPO submitted a proposed model “Framework Agreement” on 5 February 2014 (su14020cl). On 29 April 2015 SUEPO further submitted the MoU which was agreed upon in the EU (su15182cl). Both proposals are examples of European “best practice” and either of them would, in our opinion, be a much more suitable starting point for discussion between the Office and SUEPO. The current Administration chose to disregard both these proposals without any further discussion.

With additionally three SUEPO officials sanctioned in Munich and three more expecting the same in The Hague, it is not clear how union recognition talks can be taken up again. Under the circumstances agreement seems a long way away.

SUEPO Central

________
² “The duties undertaken by members of the Staff Committee and by their nominees to the bodies set up under the Service Regulations or by the Office shall be part of their normal service. The fact of performing such duties shall in no way be prejudicial to the person concerned.”

As readers may recall, the EPO’s management attempted to create an illusion of social peace just before an Administrative Council meeting that brought up the subject. “What is wrong with the EPO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)?” It’s not about understanding at all, it’s about domination — it’s for SUEPO to be dominated by the sociopath, Battistelli. The MoU proposed by the administration is “seriously flawed,” SUEPO explained and the above “publication lists the most obvious deficiencies.”

To outsiders, the above may not be obvious, especially because the EPO’s management lies so much (both inwards and outwards). This recent article about EPO and SUEPO, for instance, is full of inaccuracies. The author is obviously unaware of the whole saga and just accepts whatever EPO management says at face value.

For those who wonder what FFPE-EPO has been up to since (the above alluded to it only as “a small staff union”), here is a summary of articles about it:

1. In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
5. The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
9. Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
12. Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
13. In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election
14. FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
15. High on EPO: Battistelli’s ‘Social Conference’ Nonsense is Intended to Help Suppress Debate About His Abuses Against Staff and Union-Busting Activities
16. Leaked Letter Reveals How Battistelli Still Exploits FFPE-EPO (Yellow Union) to Attack the Real EPO Union, SUEPO

The optimal scenario is, we won’t be hearing anything from and about FFPE-EPO this year. Every time FFPE-EPO has something to say the beneficiary is Team Battistelli; FFPE-EPO’s role — like the role of many other entities after the Battistelli ‘purge’ — is to be a “yes man” or a “lapdog”. Battistelli is still trying to purge SUEPO but is unable to do so except by false accusations and unjust dismissals (even an illegal “house ban”), which draw plenty of backlash and threaten to leave Battistelli in an ashtray of history alongside Kim Jong-il. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Select Committee is Wrong About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

From Panel 2: Development of the European Patent System

Summary: The UPC is neither desirable nor practical, especially now that the EPO lowers patent quality; but does the Select Committee understand that?

The EPO‘s Web site describes the Select Committee’s mission as follows: “The legal basis for the Select Committee is Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 (“the Regulation”) and Article 145 EPC. The committee has been set up by the 25 member states participating in the unitary patent, to supervise the EPO’s activities related to the tasks entrusted to it in the context of unitary patent protection. The committee’s competences include the setting of fees.”

“According to insiders, Battistelli is trying to replace examiners with machines, paving the way to even worse patent quality.”According to this Staff Committee report [PDF] on the 147^th meeting of the Administrative Council (early 2016), the following statement was made in German by the Select Committee: “Wir begrüßen jeden Fortschritt in Richtung des einheitlichen Patentschutzes. Ich versichere Ihnen, dass das Personal hochqualifiziert ist, um das Einheitliche Patent mit sehr guter Qualität zu prüfen. Wie Sie wissen, werden europäische Patente oft nur in wenigen Ländern validiert. Mit dem Einheitlichen Patent wird es aber in vielen Staaten von uns erteilte Monopole geben. Daher ist es wichtig, dass eine sehr hohe Qualität gewährleistet ist. Ein sorgfältig geprüftes Patent benötigt aber Zeit. Wenn Sie auf Effizienz schauen, sollten nicht nur Produktionszahlen im Vordergrund stehen. Wenn die erteilten Monopole für die Wirtschaftslandschaft in Europa nützlich sein sollen, ist eine unbegrenzte Effizienzsteigerung nicht denkbar. Wir sind daran interessiert, immer besser zu werden. Eine Unterstützung durch IT-Tools ist sicher sinnvoll, aber versprechen wir uns nicht zu viel davon. Recherche und Prüfung muss immer von Menschen gemacht werden, wenn sie sinnvoll sein soll. Software ist und bleibt immer nur ein Hilfsmittel. Beachten Sie also, dass eine Steigerung der Effizienz bedeutet, dass pro Patentanmeldung im Durchschnitt weniger Zeit investiert wurde. Der Patentprüfer hat weniger Zeit für die Bearbeitung der Anmeldung gehabt. Wir sind bereit, zur hohen Qualität des Einheitlichen Patents beizutragen. Hierzu benötigen wir aber eben auch genügend Zeit, und ich hoffe darauf, dass Sie dies nicht außer Acht lassen werden.”

It says something along the lines of “we welcome any progress towards unitary patent protection.”

Obviously, as this is their mission, but the informed public is against it.

“I assure you that Staff is highly qualified to test the Unitary Patent with very good quality,” the above says, but under Battistelli (UPC booster) patent quality already nosedives.

“EPs are being invalidated in courts, yet Battistelli remains unaware of this.”The Chairman of the Select Committee (we assume Jérôme Debrulle) says “it is important to have a very high quality is guaranteed.” Well, that’s already a failed objective. Battistelli ruined the EPO, which certainly cannot be trusted to provide patents with unitary (Europe-wise and beyond) effect in prosecution.

“A support from IT tools is certainly useful,” the Chairman says, “but … research and testing must always be done by people…”

According to insiders, Battistelli is trying to replace examiners with machines, paving the way to even worse patent quality. There’s Early Certainty that Battistelli is losing his mind.

“We are ready for the high quality of the Unitary Patent,” the Chairman says, but what quality is that? EPs are being invalidated in courts, yet Battistelli remains unaware of this. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend