[PDF] has been unleashed online and we've made a copy of it for future reference. The title of the document is "Datasheet for the decision of 17 September 2015". In it, one can see how the EPO's management tried to violate rules and ultimately bury the whole matter, leaving everyone in the boards perpetually terrified of the 'insane dictator' (typical intimidation tactic, where the dictator demonstrates blatant disregards for rules and safeguards, such as International Law).
"Is this what a person gets for speaking out against abuses inside the EPO?"Merpel has linked to this PDF (uploaded to Google/PRISM). "Merpel's link does not point to the actual document as issued by the Enlarged Board," she explained, "but rather to a slightly transmoggified version. If you spot a formatting or typographical oddity, it's down to Merpel. Don't ask why, simply accept that kats are largely incomprehensible creatures. However, Merpel did not redact details of the allegations and evidence (or lack thereof) -- that was the Enlarged Board's own doing for obvious reasons.
"For some reason the EPO has not seen fit to publish this Enlarged Board decision on its website in the usual speedy fashion we have come to expect. Perhaps the top management is enjoying it too much to share with the world. Merpel, who has read it with equal interest, isn't so selfish. She looks forward to your comments."
Read the comments below, including the comment that says: "It seems that the respondent was permitted to access the building for this one time! Was he frisked by the President's goons? [...] According to some sources, the president docked the respondent salary by 50%. Would BB dare to dock it further in order to offset the reimbursement ordered by the EBoA? And could the EBoA order the President to restore the respondent's salary and pay the monies withheld?"
“According to some sources, the president docked the respondent [judge's] salary by 50%.”
--AnonymousWe have heard the same thing about the salary and we also learned that the judge's career was mostly "in the sewer" right now, due to this aggressive (and probably illegal) behaviour from the EPO's management. Is this what a person gets for speaking out against abuses inside the EPO?
As a side note, we wish to advise readers not to rely on Google for anonymity/privacy because under a court's pressure Google has a history of divulging identities (unmasking people). Also, if one links to Google's Blogspot, one must be aware that Google continues to publicly reveal the location of the linker by TLD. This can be manually corrected (obfuscated). ⬆