Killing the messenger?

When the system which protects its own power deals with those who report abuses as the cause of all problems and the sole instance of abuse

Summary: The efforts to undermine communication of internal issues inside the EPO are no longer assisted by the Administrative Council, unlike several months ago

THE Administrative Council of the Organisation is finally growing a pair. It is willing to say "No" to Battistelli, so it's not just the Enlarged Board of Appeal saying "No" to the Administrative Council after the Council had said "Yes" to Battistelli. It's an important sign of progress which may also mean that the suspended judge has his job secured (at least until cutoff/nomination stage). After all, allegedly blowing the whistle on abuses by Team Battistelli shouldn't be a crime, should it? Based on what we know about the story (which is quite a lot), the judge is likely a whistleblower. This is why Battistelli and his inner circle felt so afraid, even intimidated. Knowledge or information is a great danger to them.

As pointed out this morning, the latest rumour is that Battistelli might be on his way out and only the details are up for (private) negotiation at this stage or at some later stage (some say in a March meeting). We hear several different stories from different people, but rarely do these stories contradict one another, so while no single story is necessarily 100% accurate, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. These rumours don't come from a vacuum and it's possible for Battistelli to try hard to change course of action to 'prove' (by intervention) the rumours 'wrong', though not totally unsubstantiated at the time they were spread.

“Presumably, since the President's immunity as recited in A.13, Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, refers to privileges accorded to diplomatic agents, he is not subject to immunity in his home country and so the innocent judge could sue him there for defamation.”
      --AnonymousAccording to this new comment: "At the protest held this Wednesday in Munich, it was announced that the Administrative Counsel [sic] had recently withdrawn its second request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal that a patent judge be dismissed. The AC seems to have finally understood that the accusations brought forward by the President and his minions were unsubstantiated, as had been ruled by the EBA in relation the first request, and that it had been manipulated by the President. Not good for him."

Another person later chimed in with: "I'm sceptical about words like "announced" and "withdrawn" but, if there is substance to this, it could be the moment (had to discern) when the tide turns. But as we all know, if the tide has actually turned, what a momentous event that can be." Some believe that the judge might later wish to pursue defamation claims against Battistelli et al, in particular because of October's attacks through German and Dutch media, including Süddeutsche Zeitung with its baseless personal attack.

"This time around it might be Battistelli and Željko Topić -- not Croatian journalists -- who need to issue a public apology.""Presumably," said this person, "since the President's immunity as recited in A.13, Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, refers to privileges accorded to diplomatic agents, he is not subject to immunity in his home country and so the innocent judge could sue him there for defamation." Another person clarifies that "the EBA's [Enlarged Board of Appeal] response to the first request. They didn't make a decision either way about the accusations. They just ruled that the request was inadmissible, because there was no proper statement of case setting out the grounds. This says nothing about the guilt or innocence of the accused board member, but it does say something about the competence of those making the request."

One way or another, one day the public may find out the truth. This time around it might be Battistelli and Željko Topić -- not Croatian journalists -- who need to issue a public apology. ⬆