11.22.15
Rumour About Efforts to Dismiss a Board Judge by Intimidating Boards of Appeal
But did Jesper Kongstad actually do it? We need evidence if any exists.
Jesper Kongstad. Photo from the Nordic Patent Institute.
Summary: Comment found online accuses the Administrative Council of pressuring, by threats, Directorate-General 3 to dismiss a judge who is silently accused (with selective ‘leaks’ to the media, reportedly orchestrated by EPO managers) but not even proven guilty
LOOKING at recent comments in IP Kat, where anonymous people sometimes refer to the EPO‘s President Battistelli as “Battishenko” and “Bashar al-Istelli”, we find rather curious allegations in relation to this 'leaked' PDF which shows how Kongstad’s Administrative Counci (AC), masking itself as “EPO”, tried to crush a judge but got denied for having no legal basis. As it turns out, the EPO likes to throw around legally unsound documents, hoping to ‘trick’ people into doing things they needn’t do. If the EPO didn’t have the immunity is so proudly boasts about, it would probably get sued for legal abuse or legal bullying. Recall this case of trademark-trolling too.
“If the EPO didn’t have the immunity is so proudly boasts about, it would probably get sued for legal abuse or legal bullying.”Based on this rather curious comment, “Mr Kongstadt recently paid a visit to DG3 to threaten them in case they fail to obey the order to dismiss the DG3 member” (the judge).
“That is a serious allegation,” responded another person. “Any proof?”
“I would not surprised if this were to be true,” the commenter added. “We have seen more examples Mr. Kongstadt acts as Mr. Battistelli’s sidekick – rather than the AC president who is to ensure Mr. Battistelli is doing his work properly: secret one-on-one deals on remuneration, contacting the EBoA on his own rather than on behalf of the AC.”
If there is truth to this rumour, then we urge people to privately contact us and confirm/deny. There would be serious implications if this turned out to be true.
“If there is truth to this rumour, then we urge people to privately contact us and confirm/deny.”Another comment says: “What the above-mentioned communication from a Board of Appeal actually means is that Part VI of the Convention / Appeals Procedure no longer applies to certain technical fields, with more to follow soon.”
If the judge is dismissed by his/her colleagues, under pressure from the AC/EPO, then what makes these colleagues think they won’t be next in the firing line? We know the identity of the judge and it seems unlikely under these circumstances that these allegations are an objective truth; they’re quite likely ‘sexed up’ (like evidence of Iraq’s WoMD prior to invasion) and maybe dependent on very careful and selective dirt-digging by the ill-intending I.U. (Investigative Unit) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It’s not easy to dismiss someone for talking to colleagues, just as it’s not easy to besiege (or extradite) Julian Assange for merely publishing incriminating documents, handed over anonymously by genuinely concerned whistleblowers.
“What the above-mentioned communication from a Board of Appeal actually means is that Part VI of the Convention / Appeals Procedure no longer applies to certain technical fields, with more to follow soon.”
–Anonymous“I see two outcomes to this saga,” another commenter writes:
1) At the next AC meeting the suspended DG3 member will have his salary cut again (reduced to 50% after the last AC meeting) with some kind of deal/threat circulated in the background to make sure he takes retirement. Problem solved.
2) The suspended DG3 member will not be renominated (like so many others) when his renomination is due. Problem solved.
“Or not,” said a different commenter. “2 more years of house ban is an harassment!
“It is now official that B. [Battistelli] lied to the AC and defamed the guy and made an unlawful disciplinary measure. The next AC will be surprising!”
“Actually, it is well know within the Office that Mr. Lutz is able to write his signature upside down, so that he can sign whatever the President pushes across the table to him without having to turn it round to read it.”
–Anonymous jokeThere are many more comments there which are worth seeing. We particularly liked this amusing comment about Vice-President Lutz being like a lapdog of Battistelli. It says: “Actually, it is well know within the Office that Mr. Lutz is able to write his signature upside down, so that he can sign whatever the President pushes across the table to him without having to turn it round to read it.”
Well, the same seemingly applies to Kongstad these days, judging by the leaked PDF.
What will it take to stop Team Battistelli? We believe that information alone can put an end to it. The management of the EPO has far too much to hide, far too much to fear, and it is certainly doing a lot of things wrong. Team Battistelli, along with the I.U., wants to have a monopoly on privacy. These people want to run the EPO like the Stasi ran East Germany just so that, using the über ‘skills’ of bulk collection and mass surveillance*, they can dig ‘dirt’ and dismiss anyone who ‘dares’ to question Team Battistelli. We need to reverse this disturbing trend and overcome the Stasi by inverting the so-called ‘transparency’. Accountability necessitates access to information — something that any public body should enable by default. All that Battistelli has done about transparency is write a blog post about it. █
“Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.”
____
* In the UK it has just been made official and perfectly legal for spies and sometimes for police to access people’s complete Web browsing history, so each page ever accessed (even accidentally!) can be framed as ‘evidence’.
Content is available under CC-BY-SA