Corruption and Rule-Breaking Prevail at the European Patent Office (EPO), Europe's Second-Largest Institution
THE deeply corrupt EPO cannot take a break from the corruption and, to make matters even worse, this corruption has already spread from the EPO to the EU and deep into EU courts. The people who grant "legal" patents to companies (or their bosses) are basically people who break the law. The judges who rule on patents basically operate in violation of laws, constitutions, and treaties. Some of these judges work for "the industry" at the same time they're judges; that says a lot about who crafted such courts and who for. ISDS was just a "warm-up". You think Kremlin is bad (it is)? Wait till you understand how Europe's patent system 'works'. It's totally captured by foreign (non-European) monopolies/monopolists and litigation firms.
How did it get this bad so fast? Weren't there any safeguards? Is this system not mature enough to police itself? Apparently not. Even elections can be bought. It's "normal"... not only MElon pays people to vote for his butler. We have the same issue in the EPO.
Well, Benoît Battistelli was an accelerator of this unlawful agenda and his close friend António Campinos (who basically bought the 'election' by bribing all the voters) "finished the job". Now we have a "legal" system for patents where illegality is the arbiter and the concept of "law" - perhaps like in the US right now - is increasingly cynical. Not only did the EPO grants loads of European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable. It also brought rise to a fake legal system, wherein "the law" is a means for covering up the corruption, or to justify illegal acts.
Consider the sheer criminality of the UPC, or a 'justice' system which is based an unlawful fake 'court' built on top of massive corruption and complicity of politicians. Look what happened about a week ago. The world was shocked to learn that Team UPC had the audacity to claim jurisdiction everywhere, even though UPC wasn't even legal in the EU. As someone put it earlier this week:
"Leaving aside the purely legal considerations, on a political level, it seems insensitive, or controversial even, for an EU court to use EU law to take decisions concerning infringement of a patent monopoly that is not a product of EU law in a country that is not only not an EU member state, but in fact relatively recently chose to leave the EU and opt out of the UPC (without going into whether there was a way remaining in the UPC system was possible following Brexit)."
There are many other comments to the same effect. It's a kangaroo court that is run by a software patents booster and cheered on by media corrupted (bribed) by it. They're trying to cover up this massive scandal or make it seem like a mere 'fluke'. Or, alternatively, they try to legitimise the illegal, post hoc.
Where's the accountability here? Nobody is being held accountable: the media, the politicians, the lobbyists. It's a collusion of sorts.
Will someone be punished for this? Many should.
But no. What's being witnessed here is a collapse or a breakdown of the European legal system, at least for patents.
Case of point? Consider the EPO's education allowance in relation to the German School of The Hague. Yesterday the Local Staff Committee the Hague sent this communication to staff:
Dear colleagues,The administration replied to our letter requesting the application of the transitional measures of the education allowance to some staff members having children attending the German School of The Hague (DISDH).
Please read our answer sent on 23 January 2025.
Enclosed were a couple of new letters that relate to an October publication about the same subject. The management is burning out staff while not catering for staff's families as demanded by the EPO's rules.
Here are the excuses given by the president's friend (nepotism; no relevant qualifications!) at the start of winter:
European Patent Office
80298 Munich
GermanyDG 4 Corporate Services
Nellie Simon
Vice-PresidentTel +49 (0)89 2399 - 4000
nsimon@epo.orgDate: 23.10.2024
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Ms Isabelle Brandt
Local Staff Committee The HagueSent only by email to: dhstcom@epo.org
Your letter of 6 September 2024
Dear Chair, dear Isabelle,
The Office writes in response to your letter of 6 September 2024 concerning the implementation of the Education and Childcare Reform in The Netherlands, specifically regarding the German International School The Hague (DISDH).
The Office is aware of the recent increase in fees of the DISDH. The school has amended its educational model from a half-day school to a full-day school, and consequently charges higher fees for most classes. The core kindergarten and primary school fees of the DISDH now exceed the EPO educational ceilings as from school year 2024-25. In your letter, you express your concern on the non-applicability of the transitional measures on staff affected by this change.
Firstly, a closer look at the staff affected reveals that the financial impact of the increases is modest, with a maximum extra payment of EUR 725 per year for primary school students. This increase in fees must also be considered against the move to a full-day school model, with approximately 10 hours more service hours per week and a reduced need for childcare costs.
The key aim of the transitional measures was to maintain continuity for children of staff that, at the time of the reform, were attending international schools with school fees already above the newly introduced educational ceilings. As you correctly state in your letter, this was the reason why Article 20(1) CA/D 4/21 makes the eligibility to the transitional measures conditional on (i) being eligible to the former Article 120a, and (ii) having fees exceeding the new ceilings. These conditions were assessed on 30 June 2021. One of the aims of the reform was also to ensure greater predictability regarding
costs, through the introduction of ceilings for reimbursement applicable to all staff.
In these circumstances the children attending the DISDH were not eligible to these transitional measures on 30 June 2021. Therefore, since the entry into force of the reform, their education costs have been reimbursed in accordance with Article 71 ServRegs and Annex IV ServRegs.
The Office therefore considers that the transitional measures have fulfilled their purpose, i.e. ensuring a smooth transition into the new education scheme for those who were impacted by the changes. The Office trusts that these explanations will assist you in understanding its position.
Yours sincerely,
Nellie Simon
Vice-President DG 4
Corporate Services
The president's friend received a firm response last month:
European Patent Office
Patentlaan 2
2288 EE Rijswijk
NETHERLANDSLocal Staff Committee
The Haguedhstcom@epo.org
Date: 23-01-2025
To: Ms Simon,
Cc: Mr Rowan, Ms Cadenau, Mr El Hadouchi
By email
Education allowance – DISDH: German School The Hague
Dear Ms Simon,
We note your answer to our request for applying the transitional measures of the education allowance to some staff members having children attending the German School of The Hague (DISDH) and who meet the provisions of Article 20(1) defined in CA/D 4/21.
We reiterate that the conditions of Article 20(1) unambiguously apply to our colleagues with children enrolled to the DISDH prior to 30 June 2021 and with “annual cumulated enrolment, tuition and capital fees” exceeding the ceilings defined in Annex IV of the Service Regulations.
From a legal point of view, according to the ServRegs (CA/D 4/21 part V and Art. 17 and 20) the transitional measures “apply to employees who joined the Office up until 30 June 2021” and “whose dependent child was enrolled in a school on 30 June 2021 for the academic year 2021/2022 and for which they would have been entitled to the benefit provided for under Article 120a Service Regulations as at 30 June 2021”.
Therefore, the conditions for eligibility to the transitional measures, specifically “(i) being eligible to the former Article 120a, and (ii) having fees exceeding the new ceilings” are met.
The date on which a staff member meets these conditions is not contemplated by the Service Regulations; i.e. whether these conditions were or not met at the time of entering into force of the reform does not play any role. Therefore, all colleagues are entitled to benefit from the transitional measures provided they meet the requirements at the moment of their application.
All benefits and obligations derived from the Service Regulations apply to all staff, unless specified in the Service Regulations. The transitional measures are no exception as they are part of our ServRegs.
In your answer you state, inter alia, that the key aim of the transitional measures was to maintain continuity for the children of staff. We note that this continuity applies to all colleagues having their children at a school prior to 30 June 2021.
You also point to the “modesty” of the costs. In this respect we would like to emphasise that this is not a parameter considered in the Service Regulations and besides that, is very much dependent on the grade and family situation of the staff member concerned.
Finally, the non-application of this Article for the staff affected is not only contrary to the Service Regulations, but also to the principle of equal treatment, as staff with children in different international schools would be treated differently.
Taking all the above into account and with the aim of reducing litigation, we kindly request you to reconsider your decision and apply the transitional measures as defined in the Service Regulations to all colleagues meeting the corresponding provisions.
Kind regards,
Isabelle Brandt
On behalf of the Local Staff Committee The Hague
As usual, the EPO breaks the law with impunity, cannot be sued because of immunity, and it continues to rely on the EPO's bribery of the political class. The law does not really exist at the EPO; it can be perceived as merely a "recommendation".
What we end up with is a "legal system" that exists for nobody except the powerful few and their enablers. It's not about law at all. It's graft. It's protectionism. Scientists receive condemnation and brunt because they understand what's happening; there is a tendency to replace them with obedient and blindly loyal (usually voiceless) vassals, who are also paid a lot less and aren't capable of doing the service properly.
Society is meant to think that just because "you aren't in the trenches", then everything is fine. Just ignore António Campinos funding Putin's war using patent money. █