Bonum Certa Men Certa

Virtual Injustice -- Part 12: Carl Josefsson – Down But Not Out!

Previously in the series:

  1. Virtual Injustice -- Part 1: António's Increasingly Wonky Legal Fudge Factory
  2. Virtual Injustice -- Part 2: The ViCo Oral Proceedings of 28 May 2021
  3. Virtual Injustice -- Part 3: All the President's Men…
  4. Virtual Injustice -- Part 4: Mihály Ficsor, the EPO's Hungarian “Fixer”
  5. Virtual Injustice -- Part 5: Benoît's “Friends” in Budapest
  6. Virtual Injustice -- Part 6: Best Buddies With António
  7. Virtual Injustice -- Part 7: Musical Chairs and Revolving Doors
  8. Virtual Injustice -- Part 8: A Well-Connected 'IP' Maximalist
  9. Virtual Injustice -- Part 9: Heli, the EPO's Nordic Ice-Queen
  10. Virtual Injustice -- Part 10: Vapid and Superficial Coverage in the 'IP' Blogosphere
  11. Virtual Injustice -- Part 11: Perceptive Comments and Caustic Criticism


Josefsson and Boards of Appeal
Something seems to be out of balance at the Boards of Appeal. Now what could that be?



Summary: António Campinos still controls Josefsson, who controls all the judges, so in effect all the legal cases (including some about European software patents) are manipulated by the Office the judges are supposed to judge

One of the main protagonists in the legal shenanigans which have bedevilled case no. G 1/21 is the President of the Boards of Appeal, Carl "Calle" Josefsson, who appears to have become a casualty of his own hubris.



Josefsson's role in the case was characterised by the arrogance and "hauteur" typical of the EPOnian senior managerial caste.

"His conduct was so outrageously out of order that it attracted a significant amount of public criticism."He insisted on taking charge of the proceedings and chairing the panel despite his obvious conflict of interest in the matter.

His conduct was so outrageously out of order that it attracted a significant amount of public criticism.

Partiality objections against Josefsson and other members of the originally appointed panel were raised in numerous "third party observations" [PDF] submitted to the Enlarged Board and in written submissions filed by the appellant on 27 April 2021. [PDF]

On 17 May, the Enlarged Board held an intermediate or "interlocutory" session to consider the objections which had been raised by the appellant.

The outcome of this interlocutory session was that Josefsson was deposed as chairman of the panel. One other member of the panel - Ingo Beckedorf – was also obliged to step down after he had admitted to the Enlarged Board that he had been personally involved in the drafting of the disputed provision concerning mandatory ViCo hearings.

At this point, one might be tempted to conclude that order had been restored and that there was nothing to worry about now.

"In reality, the removal of Josefsson from the proceedings has not solved the manifold problems which have dogged this procedure from the outset."After all, Josefsson had been replaced as chairman of the panel. Didn't this mean that he was safely sidelined from exerting any further influence over the proceedings? Where's the problem?

It's understandable that an uninformed observer might be tempted to draw such conclusions. However a closer study of the facts suggests that such optimism would be seriously misplaced.

In reality, the removal of Josefsson from the proceedings has not solved the manifold problems which have dogged this procedure from the outset.

By 17 May it was plain to all and sundry - including the other members of the Enlarged Board - that Josefsson's replacement had become necessary to avoid a complete meltdown of public confidence in the Boards of Appeal and the EPO in general.

However, on its own this corrective measure cannot be considered sufficient to remedy the further flaws in the procedure or to restore public confidence in the manner in which the Enlarged Board is dealing with the case.

To begin with, it seems that the Enlarged Board's interlocutory session of 17 May took place in the absence of the parties.

As noted by the pseudonymous poster "The fall of the EBA" in a comment on IPKat, the exclusion of the parties from this session seems to be a serious procedural violation:

Partiality might be discussed in a non-open OP before the EBA, but the first decision in which the chair of the BA [Josefsson] and his faithful servant [Beckedorf] were removed by their peers, was taken without the parties. This is a scandal on its own as even the discussion on partiality should be of contradictory [i.e. adversarial] nature.


The poster went on to criticise the refusal of the Enlarged Board to grant the appellant's request for the disclosure of the statements which Ritzka and Eliasson had made in response to the objections against them, describing this as "a further scandal":

The parties have the right to know why the members accused of partiality consider themselves this is not the case.


During the oral proceedings on 28 May, the Enlarged Board dismissed a further objection that the replacement members - namely, the new chairman Blumer (replacing Josefsson), and the new legal member Bokor (replacing Beckedorf) - had not been appointed in accordance with the applicable procedural rules for replacement.

On the basis of the currently available information, it would appear that the Enlarged Board simply chose not to admit these objections on some legal technicality so that it could avoid having to enter into an examination on the substance of the objections.

All in all, there is a perception among external observers that a question mark – or rather a series of question marks – remain hanging over the legality of the panel in its current composition.

Ritzka, Eliasson and van der Eijk
There seems to be a general consensus that partiality objections relating to Ritzka, Eliasson and van der Eijk have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.



In particular, there seems to be a general consensus that the partiality objections relating to certain members of the original panel - namely, Ritzka, Eliasson and van der EIjk - have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Blumer-and-Bokor
Were the replacement members, Blumer and Bokor appointed in accordance with the applicable procedural rules?



In addition to this, there are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of the selection of Blumer and Bokor as the respective replacements for Josefsson and Beckedorf.

Aside from these well-founded concerns about the composition of the panel, observers have also pointed to another serious blunder committed by the Enlarged Board on 17 May when - claiming to be acting in the interests of "timeliness" - it stubbornly refused to contemplate any change to the original precipitous schedule which Josefsson had imposed on the proceedings in an attempt to rubber-stamp his own decision as quickly as possible.

"Had the Enlarged Board rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take proper stock of the case and have provided the appellant with an adequate opportunity to exercise its right to be heard."If the Enlarged Board had been acting in a truly independent manner free from subtle and hidden political pressures, it is clear that the only sensible course of action, following the interlocutory decision of 17 May and the sidelining of Josefsson, would have been to cancel the oral proceedings of 28 May and to re-appoint new oral proceedings at a later date.

Had the Enlarged Board rescheduled the proceedings – as it should have done – that would not only have given the newly composed panel sufficient time to take proper stock of the case and have provided the appellant with an adequate opportunity to exercise its right to be heard.

It would also have sent a clear signal that the newly composed panel wished to distance itself from Josefsson's scandalous conduct during the initial phase of the procedure and his cynically manipulative prioritisation of "speed" over "diligence".

It deserves to be pointed out that Josefsson had openly and brazenly acted in a manner which was in direct contradiction to a fundamental tenet of judicial conduct, "Nemo judex in causa sua".

This tenet is expressed in the following terms under item 9.2 of the Burgh House Principles:

"Judges shall not serve in a case with the subject-matter of which they have had any other form of association that may affect or may reasonably appear to affect their independence or impartiality".


On IPKat the pseudonymous "Proof of the pudding" commented as follows:

We can conclude that the President of the BoA must have overlooked this principle when (originally) deciding to serve in case G 1/21.

Frankly, it is hard to see how even the appearance of impartiality can now be restored in view of the fact that the EBA has not (completely) rescinded the decisions taken by the President of the BoA in G 1/21.


The failure of the Enlarged Board to draw a line in the sand and to distance itself in a clear and unambiguous manner from Josefsson's previous judicial misconduct means that, no matter what happens after his removal, the procedure remains tainted by his initial influence on it.

It also gives rise to a suspicion that Josefsson's removal from the procedure may have been agreed upon solely for the sake of "optics".

In other words, it is quite possible that his removal was nothing more than a tactical manoeuvre designed to mislead the public into believing that the Enlarged Board was prepared to deal with the case in a genuinely impartial and diligent manner.

Last but not least, there is the "elephant in the room" alluded to by a number of commentators on the IPKat blog, namely the gaping governance deficits arising from Benoît Battistelli's Boards of Appeal "reform" of 2016.

The events surrounding G 1/21 have exposed the deficiencies in this "reform" in practice and make it clear that the "reform" has diminished rather than enhanced the independence of the Boards.

As the poster "The fall of the EBA" put it in one of his comments on IPKat:

The whole way G 1/21 has been managed by the chair of the EBA shows amply that the BA [Board of Appeal] are anything but independent.

On top of it, the chair of the BA [Josefsson] only has the powers delegated to him by the president of the EPO.

There is not even the perception of the independence!


The essential point to be noted here is that, although Josefsson has been formally removed from the panel dealing with G 1/21, the Chief Oompa Loompa of the EPO's legal fudge factory still rules the roost in Haar by virtue of Rule 12d(3) EPC. (warning: epo.org link)

Chief-Oompa-Loompa-Josefsson
Chief Oompa Loompa Josefsson still rules the roost in Haar thanks to Rule 12d(3) EPC.



As explained in the postscriptum to the last series, Rule 12d(3) EPC - which is a key component of Battistelli’s 2016 “reform” - makes all internal members of the Enlarged Board dependent upon Josefsson’s goodwill for the purpose of obtaining a positive “opinion” on their reappointment.

"The events surrounding G 1/21 have exposed the deficiencies in this "reform" in practice and make it clear that the "reform" has diminished rather than enhanced the independence of the Boards."In other words, although Josefsson can no longer influence the outcome of the procedure directly, he still has considerable means at his disposal to influence it indirectly.

In the next part of the series we will summarise the current state of the procedure following the hearing of 28 May and speculate about what might - or might not - happen when the procedure resumes in July.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Edward Brocklesby (ejb) & Debian: Hacking expulsion cover-up in proximity to Oxford and GCHQ
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Microsoft Windows in Nicaragua: From 98% to Less Than 25%
Operating System Market Share Nicaragua
[Meme] Debian's 'Cannon Fodder' Economics
Conflicts of interest don't matter
According to Microsoft, It's Not a Code of Conduct Violation to Troll Your Victims Whose Files You Are Purging
The group of vandals from Microsoft think it's "funny" (and for a "nominal fee") to troll Microsoft critics
Microsoft Inside Debian is Sabotaging Debian and Its Many Hundreds of Derivatives With SystemD (Microsoft/GitHub Slopware With Catastrophic Bugs is Hardly a New Problem)
What is the moral of the story about The Scorpion and the Frog?
 
[Meme] 12 Years a Fedora Volunteer
IBM gives me a 'free' Fedora badge as recognition
IBM Slavery: Not a New Problem
When IBM got rid of Ben Cotton it showed the world how much it valued Fedora
Why They Want to Abolish Master/Slave Terminology (Because This is What They're Turned Free Software Into)
It used to be about community; GAFAM turned that into exploitation and worse
Roy and Rianne's Righteously Royalty-free RSS Reader (R.R.R.R.R.R.) Version 0.2 is Released
They say summer "officially" started some days ago
Torvalds' Number Two Quit Linux a Decade Ago and Has Since Then Earned an Honorary Doctorate
Revisiting Fuzix and Alan Cox
GNU/Linux Reaches All-Time High in Tunisia
Based on statCounter
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, June 23, 2024
IRC logs for Sunday, June 23, 2024
You Know the Microsoft Products Really Suck When...
"Qualcomm and Microsoft go 'beyond the call of duty' to stop independent Copilot+ PC reviews"
IBM and "Regime Change"
Change of regime is not the same as freedom
Techrights in the Coming Decade: The Community Angle
Somebody needs to call them out on their BS
Techrights in the Coming Decade: The Free Speech (Online) Angle
Free speech is a fundamental tenet of a free society
Techrights in the Coming Decade: The Software Angle
Gemini Protocol has just turned 5 - i.e. roughly the same age as our Git repositories
Techrights in the Coming Decade: The Patent Angle
Next month marks 10 years since we began covering EPO leaks
Wookey, Intrigeri, Cryptie & Debian pseudonyms beyond Edward Brocklesby
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
[Meme] Choice Versus Freedom
So When Do I Start Having Freedom? Freedom is choice between the GAFAMs
Digital Liberation of Society at Times of Armed Conflicts and Uncertainty
We have technical contributions, not just written output
Links 23/06/2024: More Microsoft Cancellations, Growing Repression Worldwide
Links for the day
Gemini Links 23/06/2024: The Magician and the Hacker, tmux Tips
Links for the day
Links 23/06/2024: Twitter/X Wants Your Money, Google Reports a Billion DMCA Takedowns in Four Months
Links for the day
Digital Restrictions (Like DRM) Don't Have Brands, We Need to Teach People to Hate the Underlying Restrictions, Not Companies That Typically Come and Go
Conceptually, the hens should fear humans, not the farmer who cages them
Going Above 4% Again
Maybe 4% (or above) by month's end?
Conviction, jail for Hinduja family, Debian exploitation comparison
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 23/06/2024: Hey Hi (AI) Scrapers Gone Very Rogue, Software Patents Squashed at EPO
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, June 22, 2024
IRC logs for Saturday, June 22, 2024
Gemini Links 23/06/2024: LoRaWAN and Gemini Plugin for KOReade
Links for the day
Links 22/06/2024: Chat Control Vote Postponed, More Economic Perils
Links for the day
[Meme/Photography] Photos From the Tux Machines Parties
took nearly a fortnight
Uzbekistan: GNU/Linux Ascent
Uzbekistan is almost the same size as France
SLAPP as an Own Goal
We have better things to with our limited time
Independence From Monopolies
"They were ethnically GAFAM anyway..."
GNU/Linux at New Highs (Again) in Taiwan
latest numbers
Links 22/06/2024: More Layoffs and Health Scares
Links for the day
Rwanda: Windows Falls Below 30%
For the first time since 2020 Windows is measured below 30%
[Meme] IBM Lost the Case Over "Dinobabies" (and People Died)
IBM agreed to pay to keep the details (and embarrassing evidence) secret; people never forgot what IBM called its staff that wasn't young, this keeps coming up in forums
Exactly One Year Ago RHEL Became Proprietary Operating System
Oh, you want the source code of RHEL? You need to pay me money and promise not to share with anyone
Dr. John Campbell on Gates Foundation
Published two days ago
Melinda Gates Did Not Trust Bill Gates, So Why Should You?
She left him because of his ties to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein
How Much IBM Really Cares About Software Freedom (Exactly One Year Ago IBM Turned RHEL Into Proprietary Software)
RHEL became proprietary software
Fedora Week of Diversity 2024 Was Powered by Proprietary Software
If instead of opening up to women and minorities we might open up to proprietary software, i.e. become less open
18 Countries in Europe Where Windows Fell Below 30% "Market Share"
Many people still use laptops with Windows, but they're outnumbered by mobile users on Android
[Meme] EPO Pensions in the UK
pensioners: looks like another EPO 'reform'
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, June 21, 2024
IRC logs for Friday, June 21, 2024
During Fedora Week of Diversity (FWD) 2024 IBM and Its Subsidiaries Dragged to Court Over Discrimination at the Corporate Level
IBM is a deplorable, racist company
Workers of the European Patent Office Take the Office to Court Over Pension
pensions still precarious
Gemini Links 22/06/2024: FreeBSD vs XFCE and Gemini Bookmarks Syncing Solution
Links for the day