New Paper From the EPO Highlights Large-Scale Discrimination at the Office, Where People Are Rewarded for Granting More and More Illegal Patents
"No good deed goes unpunished" at the EPO. The European Patent Organisation (and European Patent Office) is basically operating in vacuum and disguises law-breaking with some chaff about diversity and social causes.
The EPO has in effect been operating illegally under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos because it intentionally breaks its own rules and even its charter/constitution. It's deliberate, it's not some "subjective" thing. Battistelli and Campinos were not properly elected; they bribed the voters to effectively buy the leadership, bolstered by the "litigation industry" and Team UPC (in effect promoting an illegality). It could be nonchalantly proclaimed - as ample proof exists - that Europe (and the EU) has its own 'Kremlin' in Munich, Bavaria, Germany. It has been granting loads of European software patents - i.e. patents which are both illegal and undesirable - by intentionally breaking the rules. Impunity is derived from the immunity that was tactlessly granted to EPO officials under the false assumption of "good faith" officials taking and maintaining positions in the Office. Jesper Kongstad was booted by his own government only after we exposed loads of corruption a decade ago (some implicating him and his family directly). Kongstad did not have immunity in Denmark, only in "EPOnia" (state within a state).
This is the man who said in Dutch (to Dutch television) he'd ignore rulings against him from the highest Dutch court. Now he wants to control workers' pensions. Willy (Guillaume) Minnoye continues to haunt workers' finances.
A new EPO paper is circulating today. It comes from elected staff representatives and it focuses on social aspects more than the legal aspects.
"Dear All sites," wrote the Central Staff Committee, "the administration have now published some statistics on this years distribution of bonuses. Unfortunately, the rewarding rate of specific populations within the Office shows stark discrepancies. Yet again, we see the same groups being under-rewarded. Women, part-time staff, new mothers, and staff reps have seen the lowest rate of bonus reward."
The publication is dated today, so it is very 'fresh'.
We are reproducing below (as GemText, plain text, and HTML) the full publication:
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel
The Hague, 10-02-2025
sc25013cpDistribution of bonuses
Still favouring certain groups of staffFollowing the staff representation request for the administration to provide transparency on the bonus reward rounds, the administration have now published some statistics on this year’s distribution of bonuses. We are grateful that some effort to be open about the non-pensionable rewards has been made by the administration. Further, we hope that the conclusions made below can be reflected on in future bonus rounds so that no groups of staff are left behind.
How does the average bonus amount vary across different groups?
The average bonus award across DGs (yellow graph) is fairly even, varying less than 10% between the minimum in DG0 and the maximum in DG1.
Why no average bonus data by JG or specific populations?
The omission of the average bonus amount by job group (JG) in the published statistics is impossible to overlook. We can only assume how the amount of average bonus varies across job groups. In addition, the average value is also missing for the specific populations, i.e. men, women, part-time, etc. This is important information to see the whole picture, because where groups are disadvantaged by the rate of reward, this could be made even worse by those bonuses being of a lower average value. We will continue to request that the administration provide this additional data so that it can also be monitored, and hopefully addressed.Rate of rewards by Job Group
The very high reward rate among JG2 managers (blue graph), not far from twice that of the average rate, also calls for concern. It has long been assumed that managers award one another with the highest bonuses, and both the 72% rate among JG2 staff and 51% rate among JG3 staff, paired with the omission of average amount, can be considered to serve as a confirmation of this belief. It also suggests a need to a closer look at certain areas – for example how the reward rate for team managers compares to the others.
The low rate of reward for Young Professionals (YPs) is explained by the fact that those in the first year, who arrived in mid-September of 2024, rarely, if ever receive a bonus for their 3.5 months of service in 2024. The rate of reward for YPs in their second or third year (i.e. having been in service for the whole previous year) is in line with the average of the Office (green graph).
Women, part-time staff, new mothers, and staff reps at the back of the queue for bonuses
The rewarding rate of specific populations within the Office shows stark discrepancies (green graph). Those on full or partial mobility (i.e. secondment or praktika extern placements, etc.) see the highest rate of reward. Men are the next favoured population, with newcomers receiving an average rate of reward, and second and third year Young Professionals not being too far behind average.Yet again, we see the same groups being under-rewarded. Women, part-time staff, new mothers, and staff reps have seen the lowest rate of bonus reward. Staff representation have raised this issue time and time again (2022, 2023, 2024), and are faced with stubborn refusal to acknowledge any need for change from the administration. The staff representation has declined the invitation for a single staff rep to attend the Harmonisation committee alone against a representation of management comprising the president, the vice-presidents, and another 10+ of the top managers. The strict secrecy conditions insisted upon (the nominee cannot report to any other staff rep or staff member what happened in the meeting) and warped use of “confidentiality” (despite the data being anonymised, the nominee cannot share anything about the data), mean that attendance of the meeting has no use at all. However, we wonder what exactly is happening in the calibration and harmonisation meetings if it isn’t making sure that certain groups aren’t being favoured or addressing unconscious bias.
Persistent problem with no sign of improvement
This years outcome is not just a one-off issue. Ever since the introduction of bonus rewards, female staff have been rewarded bonuses at a lower rate than the male staff every single year. Not even once has the result been reversed, evidencing that this is a systemic issue. The same is the case for part-time staff – those with responsibilities outside of work are given the message that they are less valuable, even less so than the women.
Not just bonuses, but a whole rewarding exercise that never fails to disappoint
The conclusions stated here on the uneven distribution of bonuses is also seen in the reward of steps and promotions. Women and part-time staff lose out there too. The Office cannot feign ignorance to this issue, as the statistics are unequivocal and unchanging. This objective reality of how the Office demonstrate their value of the women working at the EPO is at odds with their online claims. The EPO career webpage states that “Equal pay for women and men has been our practice since we opened our doors in 1977”. While it is true that the entry salary of all new recruits is independent of gender, the same is clearly not the case for their career progression though the salary scales. The Office has also publicly announced its apparent commitment to diversity by becoming a signatory of the Charta der Vielfalt. But talk is cheap, we want to see action.The staff representation will continue to bring this issue into the spotlight until it is finally addressed.
The Central Staff Committee
To summarise the above (although it has its own summary), the EPO "has also publicly announced its apparent commitment to diversity by becoming a signatory of the Charta der Vielfalt. But talk is cheap, we want to see action."
Diversity at the EPO means French Presidents for over 20 years (out of about 23 year), women that sleep with management grabbing the top slot, and the occasional pinkwashing by the president's friend, who has no background in patents (neither does he). Even the Kremlin is probably more competent than this. Both are authoritarian, only the EPO pretends otherwise. █