07.06.16

^{Gemini version available ♊︎}

The ‘Administrative’ Council is to Benoît Battistelli What FISA is to the NSA

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even illegal surveillance inside the EPO is passively accepted by the ‘Administrative’ Council of the European Patent Organisation (EPO)

FISA article
Reference: FISA Court Appears To Be Rubber Stamp For Government Requests (NPR, 2013)

Summary: The growing realisation that the so-called ‘Administrative’ Council is little more than rubberstampers of Benoît Battistelli, who controls their national budget

LATER this year we will have written over a thousand articles about the EPO. Not much has changed as not only Benoît Battistelli remains in power but also Željko Topić keeps his job (possibly to have the term extended, unless the ‘Administrative’ Council finally learns to say “no”).

The upside is that a greater proportion of EPO workers now knows the truth about the employer. The same goes for stakeholders like patent attorneys and European companies. “At the end,” one person wrote yesterday, “whatever Battistelli proposes will be approved – with cosmetic amendments to save the face of everybody in the AC.” (‘Administrative’ Council)

Here is the comment in full (CIPA represents clients):

as the CIPA already did before they were approved, and Merpel too, we can go on and dissect these rules after their approval and find further problems – look, without being an expert I can even do that:

On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment

First the president of EPO makes a comment and then the President of the Boards of Appeal makes the proposal … but what if the comment of the President of EPO is “I don’t like that”? What happens then? Does the resident of the Boards of Appeal still make the proposal?

We shall not forget that the President of the Boards of Appeal himself is dependent from Battistelli for his appointment or reappointment …

What I mean is: the fact that we are all here mentally masturbating [Merpel you can amend that] about possible scenarios deriving from the application of these rules means that they are not clear – there does not seem to be a definitive flow chart.

But the real truth is … neither the AC nor Battistelli seem to care about your comments and analysis – or the one of the CIPA, or the users, or Merpel, or AMBA.

You can scream from the top of your lungs “this is unclear!”, “this reduces the independence of the BoA!” – it seems to have quite the opposite effect: they adopt the rules even faster – overnight.

Stop it.

It’s wasted time. At the end, whatever Battistelli proposes will be approved – with cosmetic amendments to save the face of everybody in the AC.

Remember, it has been declared that “this is an historic achievement” – who are you to go against history?

The defeatism has not turned into humour. “Clearly,” wrote another person, “in this instance, they are only rubberstampers.” In other words, delegates became somewhat of a laughing stock like FISA authoritising surveillance in the US (never saying “no”, even if its job is oversight). To quote the comment:

The new Rule 12c says “On a proposal from the President of the Boards of Appeal and after the President of the European Patent Office has been given the opportunity to comment, the Committee set up under paragraph 1 (BOAC) shall adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. “

“Shall adopt”?
No possibility to amend, or comment themselves, or not adopt unwanted RoP? What is the Committee then needed for? Clearly, in this instance, they are only rubberstampers.
A clear step towards dependency. But not necessarily towards dependency of the President of the EPOff[ice].
The PoBoA can impose any rules he wants, and since his renewal is dependent on the President,…. But he can also implement any rules he wants against the wishes of the PoEPOff. The PoEPOff can only comment, not amend.

Two years ago there were rumours suggesting that the ‘Administrative’ Council, and notably Mr. Kongstad, should be viewed as complicit (not apathetic) in relation to Battistelli. The latest ‘Administrative’ Council meeting left few doubts about that. The problem isn’t just the patent Office but the whole Organisation. It’s almost as though Battistelli elevated himself from Office President to Organisation President (having previously held Kongstad’s position). █

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.