02.24.16

EPO-Funded Unitary Patent (UPC) Propaganda Events and the Latest on the Undemocratic (Even Antidemocratic) UPC Push

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Just look what a disgrace the European Patent Office (EPO) has led Europe to…

Summary: A glance at the latest news regarding the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), which is effectively an antidemocratic EPO-led push to tilt the system in favour of patent trolls, large corporations (even from abroad), and their patent lawyers

THE EPO is today’s most urgent subject as there’s a major turning point that may soon have the Office massively reformed. The Office desperately requires reforms at many levels and areas, for the sake of Europe, for the sake of science, and for the sake of EPO workers (not bureaucrats). As a software developer, I too have much at stake. The ‘fat cats’ with their massive salaries at EPO management have other motivations in mind.

Based on this new tweet, there will soon be more lies, propaganda, and damn lies from EPO management. They’re cooking the books and expanding patent scope so as to game the numbers (not comparable year-to-year). “Let’s start the countdown,” said the official Twitter account, “we’ll be announcing our yearly figures in 10 days! Stay tuned to learn about patenting trends: #EPOresults” (that nobody would believe).

Wow! Marketing and publicity stunts. Even a “countdown”!

“The Office desperately requires reforms at many levels and areas, for the sake of Europe, for the sake of science, and for the sake of EPO workers (not bureaucrats).”Will that be as accurate as the other propaganda apparently still in the making? Propaganda which tries to portray EPO staff as happy and satisfied while the very opposite is true?

The EPO’s core issue is that it’s steered not by scientists but by selfish political bureaucrats like Battistelli. One of their latest projects is the UPC, which would definitely harm Europe as a whole (we explained the reasons many times before).

When the EPO-funded media doesn’t just utter patent maximalism (it does it almost every day nowadays) it promotes the UPC (referendum angle), conveniently not disclosing its relationship with the EPO. This long IP Kat thread about the viability of the UPC makes it clear that it’s anything but a done deal. We are not going to comment on all the Brexit/EU thing (it’s a little off limits or out of scope), but let’s just say that contrary to what the EPO says and what its paid ‘publishers’ are saying, the UPC is possible to stop. If it gets any further, it will undermine Europe’s interests and facilitate further passage of wealth to the rich, including the rich who live abroad (outside Europe). Only their patent lawyers would share the loot.

“The EPO’s core issue is that it’s steered not by scientists but by selfish political bureaucrats like Battistelli.”Here one can see the EPO-funded and UPC-loving IAM still pushing for the UPC (that’s twice in one week, from Wild in particular). Journalism or lobbying? Certainly the latter mixed with a little of the former for perceived legitimacy. Just look who foots the bill. Remember that IAM receives EPO money to organise a pro-UPC event in the US right now. Yes, in the US. And remember which firm the EPO hired to help the lobbying; it’s a Washington-based firm. That’s quite revealing, is it not? It shows who's likely to benefit.

To quote Wild (article headline is “Why there’ll be no equivalent of the Eastern District of Texas at the Unified Patent Court”): “Last Thursday a room-full of leading Silicon Valley IP professionals joined IAM for our Inside Europe’s New Patent Market – Winning Strategies for the UPC Regime conference at the Golden Gate Club in San Francisco. Over the course of the day, delegates were given insight and inside information on the new system from a speaking faculty composed of European patent litigators and attorneys, senior in-house IP managers and intermediaries, as well as Margot Fröhlinger, principal director of patent law at the EPO.”

“Just look who foots the bill.”UPC would certainly bring patent trolls to Europe. As MIP put it the other day: “Will patent trolls qualify for SME fee discount in #upc? A big concern raised by panel at #ipwomen forum!”

UPC as an open door to lots of embargoes was also noted earlier this week, with a link to this article from lawyers’ media in the UK. To quote the opening bits: “The UPC will have jurisdiction over a market as big as that in the US and it will have the power to grant interim injunctive relief extending over this whole market.

“This is outright mockery of European democracy.”“Assessing the way the UPC might consider applications for interim injunctions will help businesses evaluate whether the benefits of embracing the new unitary patent and UPC outweigh the risks.

“There are clues to how the UPC might review applications for interim injunctions in the underlying legal framework for the Court. Practices could differ from what companies are used to in proceedings before the national courts in Europe.”

“We invite more resistance to the UPC.”Another lawyers’ site takes note of the latest UPC moves in Germany, stating that “draft legislation is supposed to pass the parliamentary chambers (Bundestag and Bundesrat) in Summer 2016.”

We have already explained the role of nepotism and abusive/dirty politics in this. The UPC truly is a travesty and some of the funding for UPC propaganda comes from the EPO and patent lawyers. This is outright mockery of European democracy.

If Battistelli fails to bring about the UPC, then even his rich masters will ‘plonk’ him like a fish. We invite more resistance to the UPC. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Large Corporations and Their Patent Lawyers Up in Arms After US Government Effectively Abolished a Lot of Software Patents

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 7:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Won’t take no for an answer…

Summary: The growing conflict between public interests, government patent policies, and rich people (or their corporations) who want it all, not to mention their lawyers/lobbyists

TODAY’S EPO openly promotes software patents in Europe, in effect, metaphorically, spitting on the EPC on which it was founded. This is what happens when maximalists are foolishly put in change. What happens in the US right now is also interesting. Corporations there control the government more so than in Europe, and some increasingly take their government to court over alleged ‘damages’ (i.e. policies that don’t favour said corporations).

Never forget CAFC’s introduction of software patents several days ago. Now, see this latest post about CAFC, which says: “As a starting point for most claims against a government is with sovereign immunity. The U.S. Government claims sovereign immunity against suits except where waived. In the patent context, the U.S. government has waived its immunity, but limits the procedure and form of recovery. In particular, 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) provides that “the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.” The statute also provides cover for contractors or other non-government-entities who infringe the patent “with the authorization or consent of the Government” so that those actions must also be pursued against the U.S. Government. The Court of Federal Claims is located in the same Madison Place building as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

As we noted in passing in the previous post, ISDS (and its encapsulating ‘hosts’, e.g. TTIP/TTPP) is becoming a growing danger. Can corporations, in the guise of “investors”, sue the government for taking action against software patents? Can patent trolls too foresee lawsuits against the US government, over Alice at SCOTUS for example? SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) typically rules in favour of corporations, with or without Scalia at the helm, and this new report from WIPR says “US Supreme Court hears arguments on enhanced damages” (who after all would benefit from that?).

Yesterday we found this new paper from Martin H. Snyder of Main Sequence Technology Inc. The abstract says: “Patent systems have not successfully adjusted to the advent of the Information Age. Law developed during the Industrial Age generates harmful distortions when faced with process-based inventions that result in new and useful information. Congress and the courts have attempted solutions, but they are unsatisfying in aspects of repeatability and lack of coherent separation of subject matter eligibility and patentability, with such separation seemingly implicit in the scheme of the patent act. A unifying doctrine of eligibility for information inventions is needed that adheres to standing patent law, court procedures, and normative expectations. Courts should require that process-based inventions have an identified result, which should be construed as a matter of law. Current Markman procedures should be expanded and treated as both eligibility and probable cause phases of the validity inquiry. There is a bar on inventions considered to be abstract ideas, as well as a bar on patenting printed material. These longstanding bars exist because virtually any human activity may be characterized as a process, thus bringing unlimited patent rights into direct conflict with other Constitutional rights. Despite those bars, thousands of computer and biotech patents have issued that constructively cover information and/or the utility derived therefrom. Finding disqualifying abstraction in eligibility and disqualifying abstraction in patentability requires different tests. If a process-based invention’s result is found to comprise information, a new test for eligibility should be applied. The current Alice test should be applied to the patentability inquiry. Abstraction is a continuum on linguistic and semiotic levels, requiring social conventions to create meaning. Finding justiciable meaning in social conventions creates insurmountable challenges to ethical enforcement of intellectual property rights. The literal root of the word abstract means to “draw away”, or consume. The proposed eligibility test requires that the information-consumer of a process-based invention’s result may not be a human being. Because non-human intelligences are a new fact in the world, products of human ingenuity, and essential actors in the Information Age, if the information-consumer is non-human, the information result of such a process-based invention should be patent eligible, subject to statutory and common law patentability requirements. There have been other proposed approaches to solving this problem, but all fall short for various reasons. This proposed new test focusing on the information-consumer is simple to apply across the arts; is technology neutral, intuitively appropriate, empowering of innovation in the Information Age, and highly fitted to American ideals.”

What we have here is a corporate lobbying (de facto lobbying) trying to push for software patents in “paper” form (academic guise), much as David Kappos did last year. These people profit from software patents and they are increasingly upset at their government for ending a lot of software patents after a SCOTUS ruling. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

IBM and Other Giant Multinationals Upset That Software Patents Are Increasingly Rejected in the US, Now India

Posted in America, Asia, IBM, Patents at 6:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Oh, the poor baby, IBM…

Summary: The rather revealing response from patent aggressors and maximalists to the current international trend, which (with the exception of the EPO in Europe) cracks down on software patents

PUTTING aside the EPO for a moment, much needs to be said about software patents in general. According to these new raves [1, 2], companies continue to disguise software patents as hardware, in this particular case “patents for its groundbreaking WOS Object Storage software.”

“IBM should take the hint and stop lobbying for software patents in Europe and Zealand, not to mention India.”Remember that not only in Europe, New Zealand and India has it become hard (if not impossible) to patent “abstract” software, unless it’s described as tied to some physical hardware (like “storage”). In the US too, much more so after Alice, it has become harder to patent software, and especially to assert a software patent in a US court of law. As the FFII’s President correctly pointed out, however, “ISDS tribunals will be able to interpret the “patents for all fields of technology” of TRIPS in order to grant swpats [software patents] and trump Alice.” We may cover this subject some other day.

Don’t underestimate the tricks of patent lawyers. Their biggest clients are large corporations, often foreign. Many of them depend on software patents for a living. Here is Australian patent lawyer Justin Blows dissecting a US case (Ameritox Ltd v Millennium Health) and saying, “Does this explain software patentability in the US?”

To quote Blows: “People trying to understand the patentability of software, particularly in the US, often go to the US Supreme Court decision Alice. To many this decision is difficult to understand.

“Consequently, it is always interesting to have a Judge comment on what they think Alice is about.”

Now, remember how Manny Schecter (IBM) was pushing India towards software patents? Here he is highlighting “More stats on the rise in 101 #patent application rejections after the Alice decision” (IBM must not be happy about it) and here he is sort of lobbying (shaming tactics) for software patents in India, rather than just recognise that things have changed. It’s rather insulting to Indians.

IBM should take the hint and stop lobbying for software patents in Europe and New Zealand, not to mention India. Dear Indians, please take note of what IBM has been doing in your country (see this Wiki page about software patents in India for background), even after India's latest shoot-down of software patents (there were additional press reports about it, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] on Monday on Tuesday, with Tuesday links in the higher numbered citations).

For the IBM chief, based on his tweet, it’s a case of copy or innovate. Nice false dichotomy he got there. Either you patent software (meaning innovation) or you don’t, meaning you just copy, or rip off. Who is he kidding? Is it now fashionable to use anti-China tactics against Indians?

Going back to the US case, see this article titled “Who Is Alice, And Why Is She Driving Patent Attorneys Mad As Hatters?”

This new article states: “Every so often, the Supreme Court hands down a case that causes a seismic shift in our legal system. Constitutional law professors wax poetic about Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland. News analysts loudly denounce Citizens United: “Corporations aren’t people!” But ask a patent attorney for an example of such a case and you are likely to witness a ten-minute diatribe on the shortcomings of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014).”

There are some very interesting statistics there from Juristat (the ones Schecter linked to). As the text explains: “This line represents the percentage of all patent rejections based on section 101. In May 2014, that percentage was only 7%. By August 2014, it nearly doubled to 12%. As of August 2015, section 101 rejections made up 15% of all rejections issued at the USPTO. That’s a massive increase, especially considering that software patents represent only a small portion of applications handled at the USPTO.”

Watch what Alice has been doing to software patents in the US. As it turns out, there is patent arms trade between China and the US right now, as Intel offloads a lot of patents onto Xiaomi. Remember that Intel is a proponent of software patents and has many software patents of its own (we covered this in past years). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations Bemoans EPO Climate of “Fear, Threats, Intimidation or Retaliation”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) is “calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management”

THERE is plenty to write (and unveil) today about the EPO, so we shall start with the easy stuff.

Last night (I stayed up until after 4) a request was made to transcribe this document [PDF] which is shown below as images:

One person sent us a manual transcription:

FICSA
Ref: 69th Council EPO
Geneva, 12 February 2016

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have the honour to share with you FICSA Resolution 69/4 calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management in order to ensure that all staff representatives may defend the interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation and that the recently dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials be reinstated without delay. This Resolution was unanimously adopted by the members of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) attending the 69th session of the Council at the headquarters of the ICAO in Montreal from 25 to 29 January 2016.
The FICSA Council therefore requests your full support in ensuring that the above issue is properly addressed and that normal staff/management relations are restored at the European Patent Organisation.
The Federation places high importance on healthy relations between management and staff representatives and as such looks forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Diab El Tabari
President
To:
Ms. Elzbieta Bienkowska, EU Commissioner
Mr. Battistelli, President of the EPO
Council Secretariat
SUEPO Central
FICSA Executive Committee

Resolution 69/4
THE STATUS OF STAFF/MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO)
The Council of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) at its 69th Session (ICAO Montreal, 25 to 29 January 2016),
Noting that in the course of 2014, 2015 and 2016, the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association were severely undermined at the European Patent Office (EPO),
Noting further that the President of the EPO went beyond the recommendations of the disciplinary committees and punished arbitrarily and disproportionally Ms. Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and Chair of the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Munich by dismissing her with a 20% cut of her pension rights and Mr. Ion Brumme, Member of the Central Staff Committee Munich and former chair or SUEPO Munich by dismissing him and Ms. Malika Weaver, Member of the Central Staff Committee in Munich and Treasurer of SUEPO Munich, by downgrading her 8 steps,
Noting further that the recent deterioration in the working relations between EPO Management and the Staff Committee members has recently led to unfounded investigations and allegations which may lead to further retaliation,
Calls upon the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, in the interest of restoring effective staff/management relations and mutual respect, to intercede directly with the EPO Management in order to ensure that the dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials are reinstated without delay and that all staff representatives can defend the legitimate interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation in keeping with the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association.

Another person wrote to us this morning: “Here’s the requested OCR, that’s easier than a translation [of a French article]. Practically zero polishing required, the source material is perfect.”

Ref.: 69th Council EPO
Geneva, 12 February 2016

FICSA
Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations

Fédération des associations de fonctionnaires internationaux

GENEVA FICSA Secretariat Room Dep.201 Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva
10 Switzerland

Telephone: (41 22) 917 3150
Facsimile: (41 22) 917 0660
Email: ficsa@unog.ch

http://ficsa.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have the honour to share with you FICSA Resolution 69/4 calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management in order to ensure that
all staff representatives may defend the interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation and that the recently dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials be reinstated without delay. This Resolution was unanimously adopted by the members of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) attending the 69th session of the Council at the headquarters of the ICAO in Montreal from 25 to 29 January 2016.

The FICSA Council therefore requests your full support in ensuring that the above issue is properly addressed and that normal staff/management relations are restored at the European Patent Organisation.

The Federation places high importance on healthy relations between management and staff representatives and as such looks forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Diab El Tabari President

To: Heads of Delegation to the European Patent Organisation
Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

Encl.
cc. Ms. Elzbieta Biehkowska, EU Commissioner Mr. Battistelli, President of the EPO Council Secretariat SUEPO Central FICSA Executive Committee

Bioversity • BIPM • CERN • CSSA • CTBT0 • ECB • ES0 • FA0 • Global Fund
• IAEA • IARC • ICAO • ICC0 • ICO • IFAD • IL0/ITC Turin • IM0 • IOC •
I0M • IPU • ITER • ITU • 0PCW • PAH0 • SCBD • UNAIDS • UNESCO • UNFCCC •
UNGSC • UNRWA • UNWT0 • UPU • WHO • WIP0 • WM0 • WT0/0MC

---

Resolution 69/4

THE STATUS OF STAFF/MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO)

The Council of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) at its 69th Session (ICAO Montreal, 25 to 29 January 2016),

Noting that in the course of 2014, 2015 and 2016, the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association were severely undermined at the European Patent Office (EPO),

Noting further that the President of the EPO went beyond the recommendations of the disciplinary committees and punished arbitrarily and disproportionally Ms. Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and Chair of the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Munich by dismissing her with a 20% cut of her pension rights and Mr. Ion Brumme, Member of the Central Staff Committee Munich and former chair of SUEPO Munich by dismissing him and Ms. Malika Weaver, Member of the Central Staff Committee in Munich and Treasurer of SUEPO Munich, by downgrading her 8 steps,

Noting further that the recent deterioration in the working relations between EPO Management and the Staff Committee members has recently led to unfounded investigations and allegations which may lead to further retaliation,

Calls upon the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, in the interest of restoring effective staff/management relations and mutual respect, to intercede directly with the EPO Management in order to ensure that the dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials are reinstated without delay and that all staff representatives can defend the legitimate interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation in keeping with the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association.

If someone starts writing an English translation of the article from France, please let us know so that we can reduce the chance of duplicate (simultaneous) efforts. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Techrights Reaches 20,000 Posts

Posted in Site News at 5:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: This is blog post number 20,001

IT’S not quite as I imagined it. There’s no party, there’s not even time to celebrate. I’m actually ill today (caught the wife’s flu after our weekend trip to Yorkshire) and rather increasingly stressed with a large — and growing — pile of stuff I wish to publish. But nevertheless, yes, we’ve just passed 20,000 blog posts (aside from non-blog pages).

Please keep sending us material regarding the EPO because the endgame is nearly here. It’s spinning out of control right now as the management reacts in sheer panic. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

02.23.16

More Information About Battistelli’s Utterly Miserable Last EPO Moves (Leaked Photo Included)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Like Putin’s referendum at gunpoint

Summary: Staff of the EPO criticises Battistelli’s (and apparently Minnoye’s as well) pathetic attempt to pressure line managers into signing a statement in support of Battistelli

The latest EPO leaks, especially two of today’s [1, 2], truly back claims that Battistelli may be on his way out and it’s only down to compensation or some ‘pesky’ technicalities. We have received additional information. That was just moments ago.

Top level and lower level managers at the EPO aren’t happy to sign a letter in support of Battistelli, based on the number of leaks we have been receiving about it (quite a lot). Above is a screenshot and here is the text it came with: “Petition as a last resort: After having consistently ignored petitions coming from staff, Mr B now starts petitioning himself: But does he seriously believe that coercing his managers into signing such nonsense is going to help? EPO top management consistently ignored, despised and humiliated the line managers for years. But now as the dear president is in deep trouble, they remember their existence. Dear EPO line managers: please sign and support the EPO top management in their holy fight! And promised, when this is over, they will resume ignoring, despising and humiliating you, because they can, and because they think that you deserve it.”

“Top level and lower level managers at the EPO aren’t happy to sign a letter in support of Battistelli, based on the number of leaks we have been receiving about it (quite a lot).”The letter is self-humiliating because just like Željko Topić’s alleged letters of intent to himself (covered here last week), such actions serve to reinforce widespread allegations of poor character. What was Battistelli thinking? Was he drunk on some "dangerous cocktail"? This is similar but not identical to the Streisand Effect.

As one other readers of ours put it: “It seems that EPO top management is trying to coerce all line managers into signing a petition to the AC. Amongst other requests, the petition claims ‘to remain firm on ethics and not to tolerate misconduct’. This item is a reference to the Investigation Guidelines, which are now even openly criticised by the Board 28 delegations. But Mr Battistelli needs to maintain them since the Investigation Guidelines are a cornerstone of his management-by-intimidation approach. All line managers are expected to sign the petition. They must show that they are loyal to the party line. They are not happy since they know that ‘captain’ B’s titanic is sinking. Many of them probably experience the act of being forced into signing this ridiculous piece of paper as another humiliation. Those who sign will lose even more of the respect of their staff.”

Let your delegates know what Battistelli is scheming to do in order to form a false perception about his leadership and supposed popularity. █

Permalink 3 Comments      Send this to a friend

Request of Transcription and Translation: FICSA Letter Against EPO, French Media on EPO Abuses

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A call for help in documenting complaints about human rights abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

UPLOADED a short while ago (to Google, which also operates Blogspot and GMail, neither of which offers true privacy to say the least) was this document [PDF] which serves to highlight concerns about the EPO’s abuses. We don’t have the text (needs OCR and/or careful manual work) and would love for someone to provide it.

Here is page 1:

Here is page 2:

We’re drowning in material at the moment, so if anyone could please post the text (e.g. down below in the comments), that would be great. It’s worth an entire article of its own, in order to do justice to this action.

More usefully, however, given the circumstances affecting Frenchmen (and a Frenchwoman) we also need a native French speaker to accurately translate this new article, which one of our readers dubbed “Suicides, Burn-out, discriminations à l’Office européen des brevets (OEB)” (that’s EPO in French). To quote the opening paragraph (not a translation): “Suicides, Burn-out, discriminations et licenciements des délégués syndicaux à l’Office européen des brevets (OEB) et à la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE)… Syndicats et élus politiques tirent la sonnette d’alarme sur le mal-être des salariés dans les institutions européennes. En cause, notamment, l’impunité juridique de ces institutions : elles ne relèvent d’aucune législation nationale, ne sont soumises à aucun contrôle extérieur et instaurent leurs propres règlements. Décryptage.”

The coming few articles will focus on more urgent and emergent subjects. We must always prioritise in order to get things out at the right time. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

New Leak: Battistelli’s Circle, Now Fighting for Survival, Circulates a Letter (and Why Some at the EPO Believe It’s a Form of Blackmail)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Another new leak regarding the emperor’s last stand, as the upcoming Administrative Council meeting (in March) may reveal, for the first time ever, a Chairman (Jesper Kongstad) who has lost trust in Battistelli, the President of the Office

THE EPO is in a state of disarray and the lunatic dictator acts accordingly, aided by his increasingly-notorious circle of dictators whose livelihood depends on their chief dictator. This afternoon we urgently published a leak that we had gotten from 3 independent sources. The following article serves to reaffirm the authenticity of some things we got from many other sources, so it’s definitely not likely to have been faked or manipulated (we compared the sources to ascertain accuracy).

On a more personal note, my wife’s flu is meanwhile passing/progressing to me as well, just ahead of a very busy day (of reporting on EPO matters). It’s really quite a personal struggle (it’s 2 AM now), but nothing compared to the abuse some staff representatives at the EPO have been subjected to.

One source of ours said about the last post that s/he “got a copy of this document that ha[d] been circulating about lately. Source unknown, thus: authenticity not guaranteed. It could originate from any of the 38 delegations.

“Kongstad looks as if he is distancing himself from his old accomplice Battistelli, and positioning himself for the postbellum period.

“The last paragraph of the draft resolution is a hint that Battistelli — or the future EPOrg president — could be made much more accountable to the AC [Administrative Council], and his actions would be more narrowly controlled. But then the AC members (and the governments who send them) would have to come up with actual, visible, policies for the Patent Office.

“If there is any truth to the rumour that Battistelli intends to walk away with “his” loot no matter what, then he undoubtedly possesses some means of leverage over JK [Jesper Kongstad]. Remember, JK and Battistelli “negotiated” together the President’s secret employment contract, with its perks, bonuses and all.”

Glyn Moody was especially astonished by the part which said: “Unfortunately, we have not been able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the President” (from the leak we published).

One anonymous comment said to us earlier today that “BB [Battistelli] and his supporters have prepared a ridiculous letter in support of the management and against the above draft letter/decision. The letter denies the existence of a social conflict and states a support for the course of action taken by BB. The President is clearly blackmailing the managers and so many directors are facing a dilemma: sign it or not? They know that if BB survives they will have a hard life. I hope you’ll receive copy of it and that you’ll post it here. It will show the extent of madness of the EPO high management. No letter will help BB. He’s bound to fall soon.”

Well, we got the letter from several sources, not only one, and both of the below examples are in agreement (formatting and typo variations only). It’s definitely authentic, there’s no prank here. Here it is (version 1):

Letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

From: the management of the EPO

We have been made aware of a draft decision some delegations intend to present to the next March 2016 Administrative Council session.

We would like to share with you our concerns. We take this exceptional step as this is commensurate to the seriousness of the consequences of the draft resolution, if adopted.

Firstly, we would like to point out that we are committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation. To that respect, we have supported and implemented the reforms and new policies stemming from the 5 roadmaps unanimously adopted by the AC in 2011 and 2014. These reforms have already borne fruit and the Organisation is now healthier than ever and is equipped to deliver first class services (Unitary patent, quality, timeliness…) At the same time the reforms have increased the long term sustainability of the Organisation, while maintaining a very attractive package and excellent working conditions for its staff. This healthy situation benefits directly the European economy, the Member States, and EPO’s staff.

Concerns from the staff occur in all countries and Organisations in period of substantial transformation. Despite this, the staff is currently highly performing and committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation.

We are aware that Officials of the EPO are being put directly or indirectly under pressure. The Office and more and more of its officials at all levels of the hierarchy including elected staff representatives have been and are subject to defamation campaigns internally and externally, personal threats and harassment.

In that respect it is the Office’s duty of care to address the situation and proceed under the EPO’s regulatory framework, to establish the facts and when needed, engage in disciplinary procedures. The respondents have regulatory means of redress including the request to a review of the decisions.

Under the current circumstances we urge you to consider that the proposal submitted to the AC will undermine the position of all managers to successfully pursue the changes initiated in the road maps as decided in the Administrative Council and will create unfortunate precedents which will jeopardize seriously the management of the Organisation and its capacity to ensure its operations effectively now and in the future.

We fully support the Organisation’s mission and its fundamental values. Therefore we urge the Administration Council, before taking any decision on the matter to give careful consideration to this letter:
- to remain firm on ethics and not tolerate misconduct;
- to focus on the great achievements and improve the positive image of the Organisation;
- to endorse the on-going initiatives of the Office in the social dialogue (recognition of unions, social study, current review of regulations, social conference).

We are convinced that the implementation of the reforms is a solid basis for a solid EPO fit for the future.

Formatting is the source’s own. Another person separately got hold of the original. “I was in the process of sending you the text which VP1 (Willy Minnoye) wanted his subordinate directors to “voluntarily” endorse when the scoop came out at IPkat. At least you’ll have the full version, in case it hasn’t already reached you through a dozen other correspondents.”

Well, that’s an overestimate of how many people sent the letter to us, but here’s the cleaned-up OCR version of the same document (version 2 of n):

Letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

From: the management of the EPO

We have been made aware of a draft decision some delegations intend to present to the next March 2016 Administrative Council session

We would like to share with you our concerns. We take this exceptional step as this is commensurate to the seriousness of the consequences of the draft resolution, if adopted.

Firstly, we would like to point out that we are committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation. To that respect, we have supported and implemented the reforms and new policies stemming from the 5 roadmaps unanimously adopted by the AC in 2011 and 2014. These reforms have already borne fruit and the Organisation is now healthier than ever and is equipped to deliver first class services (Unitary patent, quality, timeliness…). At the same time the reforms have increased the long term sustainability of the Organisation, while maintaining s very attractive package and excellent working conditions for its staff. This healthy situation benefits d,rectiy the European economy, the Member States, and EPO’s staff.

Concerns from the staff occur in all countries and Organisations in period of substantial transformation. Despite this, the staff is currently highly performina and committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation.

We are aware that Officials of the EPO are being put directly or indirectly under pressure. The Office and more and more of its officials at all levels of the hierarchy including elected staff representatives have been and are subject to defamation campaigns internally and externally, personal threats and harassment.

In that respect it is the Office’s duty of care to address the situation and proceed under the EPO’s regulatory framework, to establish the facts and when needed, engage in disciplinary procedures. The respondents have regulatory means of redress including the request to a review of the decisions.

Under the current circumstances, we urge you to consider that the proposa1 submitted to the AC will undermine the position of all managers to successfully pursue the changes initiated in the road maps as decided in the Administrative Council and will create unfortunate precedents which will jeopardize seriously the management of the Organisation and its capacity to ensure its operations effectively now and in the future.

We fully support the Organisation’s mission and its fundamental values Therefore we urge the Administrative Council, before taking any decision on the matter to give careful consideration to this letter:

- to remain firm on ethics and not tolerate misconduct

- to focus on the great achievements and improve the positive image of the Organisation

- to endorse the on-going initiatives of the Office in the social dialogue (recognition of unions, social study, current review of regulations social conference).

We are convinced that the implementation of the reforms is a solid base for a strong EPO fit for the future.

Imagine what would happen to staff that refused to sign this letter. IP Kat is meanwhile deleting comments as if there’s suddenly some fear of a lawsuit over the content of comments (we were told by some people about IP Kat‘s censorship for a while now) and here is the latest from Merpel, who wrote in the third person’s narrative: “Merpel has been receiving a stream of rumour and hearsay since last week, indicating a serious bust-up between EPO President Benoit Battistelli and the members of Board 28 (the sub-group that runs the business of the Administrative Council). Notably, Mr Battistelli has apparently lost the crucial support of Mr Jesper Kongstad, the Chair of the Administrative Council, who had until now been one of Battistelli’s key defenders. The final meeting allegedly culminated in an ultimatum to Mr Battistelli to which he allegedly responded by walking out of the meeting.

“Merpel has been slow to pass on these reports as she prefers to report verified facts and not mere unsubstantiated rumour. As a result much of the comment moderation over the last week on this site has involved repeatedly deleting well-intended reports of what the latest whispers around the EPO were saying – deletions which Merpel justifies on the basis that the whispers were not always in agreement and were rarely substantiated.

“Merpel has however received from several sources, some of which are normally reliable, the text of a letter attributed to Mr Kongstad and addressed to the AC delegates. This draft letter is accompanied by a draft resolution for the AC to sign off on at its meeting in March. Merpel strongly suspects that the text which is being passed around the EPO is not the final draft that will be (or has been) sent by Mr Kongstad, but the gist of the communication is clear nonetheless.”

So far, the main false rumour that we have come across relates to Bergot. The rest turned out to be accurate.

To quote further from Merpel:

In what appears to be a sign that Mr Battistelli is not going to bend the knee without some resistance, a remarkable letter has been drafted by those most loyal to Mr Battistelli addressed to the AC “from the management of the EPO”. This letter has, Merpel understands, been presented to EPO managers and directors for their signature – purely voluntarily, you understand.

The letter is drafted as an attempt to persuade the AC to vote against the resolution drafted by Board 28. While it studiously avoids mentioning Mr Battistelli it urges the AC to support “the Office” and to vote against the proposals of Board 28.

This letter of support says (and Merpel doesn’t joke about such matters) that the Organisation is “healthier than ever”. It warns that the proposal drafted by Mr Kongstad will undermine all EPO managers and will jeopardize the reforms that are underway. The AC should, according to this letter, focus on the Office’s “great achievements” and endorse the Office’s social dialogue, not criticise and undermine it.

Merpel does not yet know how many managers have signed the letter, or what the implications might be for either agreeing or declining to sign it. She will keep readers updated when significant developments occur.

[...]

Given the unprecedented implications of these developments, and the fact that feelings are running extraordinarily high, Merpel has decided at least for now to disable the comments facility on this post and she will be disallowing comments on other posts that address these developments. If readers have any concrete and verifiable further news to share, please email merpel.mckitten@gmail.com.

It’s only getting worse. First there was a ban on totally anonymous comments and now this? Is the EPO sending some E-mails to IP Kat?

Now that IP Kat rejects comments about the EPO (except when it comes to the UPC), we wish to remind readers how to get in contact with us securely. We wouldn’t trust GMail for anything as the EPO works closely with Google — not just on translations — and the EPO’s I.U. claims to have already intercepted several communications (not ours but Florian Müller‘s) that relied on GMail (the exact circumstances are not known as documents we have seen and publicly shared don’t specify the methods).

Noteworthy is the comment above about why this letter puts enormous pressure on people to obey the tyrant and pretend to support him (even while wishing he’d be fired). Whoever signs this letter, well… the Administrative Council and its Chairman (Jesper Kongstad) should feel free to disregard/dismiss them, as they are obviously signing under pressure (compelled to endorse or risk one’s job). It’s like a Crimean election. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend