03.06.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Engaño, Europe, Patentes at 7:30 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
De un video publicado por la EPO hace dos días
EPO y IAM
Sumario: IAM, quien es financiado por la firma de PR (FTI Consulting) la que a su vez esta bajo salario de la EPO, provee a ella con propaganda o puntos para hablar, usando una encuesta no científica
TECHRIGHTS se ha enterado que la EPO, así como su [ equipo PR [http://techrights.org/2016/01/01/epo-pr-team/], disfruta de una red de apoyo. Ellos typicamente sirven a la la linea de partido de Battistelli.
Ayer encontramos esta rara lectura de guión de Benito Battistelli (uno de varios videos de propaganda publicados el 3/3, el ¨día de propaganda de la EPO¨, en un esfuerzo de fabricar cubrimiento positivo por parte de la prensa cuando es dolorósamente necesaria para la distracción), completa con los viejos puntos para hablar (refutados aquí anteriormente), propaganda por la UPC, y números de IAM, quien es financiado por la EPO (recuerden los ~$1,000,000/anual contrato con la FTI Consulting). Vean la captura de pantalla de arriba. Para aquellos que se pregunten de donde viene estos números, es de los ¨lectores de IAM¨, difícilmente buena así como estadisticamente suficiente (o neutral) gente para encuestar. Es también fácil de manipular. Aquí esta el reporte del 2012 y una captura de pantalla parapasar el muro de pago:
En el lado privado 68% de los encuestados dijeron que la calidad es ¨excelente¨ o ¨muy buena¨, eso es 62% más alto que el 2011. Los resultados del lado corporativo revelaron que un 55 % consideró la operación de la EPO ser ¨excelente¨ o ¨muy buena¨; mientras que un 37% la consideraron ¨buena¨. Comparaciones directas con el año pasado del lado corporativo no fue posible por que no hubo posibilidad de escojer ¨bueno¨ el 2011 sino ¨excelente¨, ¨muy bueno¨, ¨bueno¨ o ¨pobre¨. Mientras que las figuras fueron 19% por la oficina de patentes del Japón, 23% por la USPTO, 39% para la oficina Coreana de IP y 45% para la Oficina Estatal China de IP.
From 2015:
Preguntados por el estado de sus percepciones acerca de la calidad de las patentes otorgadas por cada una de sus oficinas, 60% del lado corporativo le otorgo un status de ¨excelente¨ o ¨muy bueno¨, una figura que crece a 81% cuando la categoria ¨buena¨ se incluye. La EPO llego segunda con 35% de encuestados calificandola de ¨excelente¨ o ¨muy buena¨ (61% con ¨buena¨ también) la USPTO tercera con 32%, la KIPO 67% -con 16% 41% terminó arriba de SIPO que consiguió 12%/35%. La EPO consiguió mejor calificación en la práctica privada, 62% ¨excelente¨ o ¨muy buena¨ y 87% ¨buena¨ incluída. La JPO fue de nuevo segunda con 33%/70% y la siguió la USPTO con 30%/69%. Fue historia similar para los ejecutivos de la NPE que también pusieron la EPO arriba, JPO segunda y USPTO tercera.
En el video de arriba, con el logo de la Encuesta de IAM del 2015 en el fondo, Battistelli dice (o lee el guión que alguién le preparó): “Más usuarios nos han confirmado que están altamente satisfechos con la calidad de nuestros productos.
Battistelli llama a esto una ¨encuesta independiente¨. !Qué tal chiste! Es como escuchar a un ejecutivo de la Shell/BP/Exxon comentando en los efectos de su compañía en el calentamiento global. Ellos pagan a compañías de Relaciónes Públicas PR a engañar al público acerca de ello.
A Battistelli le preocupa (o sabe acerca) de ciencia y estadísticas tanto como la gestión de residuos lo hace. El compensa su ignorancia con una actitud que aterra. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.05.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
From a video released by the EPO just 2 days ago
Summary: IAM, which is paid by the EPO’s PR firm (FTI Consulting), provides the EPO with propaganda or talking points, using a very unscientific ‘survey’
TECHRIGHTS is aware that the EPO, along with its PR team, enjoys a network of supporters. They typically serve the party line of Battistelli.
Yesterday we found this rather awkward reading of a script by Benoît Battistelli (one among several propaganda videos released on 3/3, the "EPO propaganda day", in an effort to manufacture positive press coverage when it’s sorely needed for distraction), complete with the old talking points (debunked here before), UPC propaganda, and figures from IAM, which is being paid by the EPO (recall the ~$1,000,000/annum FTI Consulting contract). See the screenshot above. For those who wonder where this data comes from, it is “IAM readers”, i.e. hardly a good enough and statistically-meaningful (or neutral) pool of people to poll. It’s also easy to game. Here is the 2012 report and a screenshot to help get past the paywall:
From 2015:
In the above video, with the IAM Survey 2015 logo in the background, Battistelli says (or reads someone’s script): “More users have confirmed that they’re highly satisfied with the quality of our products.”
Battistelli calls this an “independent survey”. What a joke! It’s like listening to a Shell/BP/Exxon executive commenting on the effect of his/her company on global warming. They pay PR firms to mislead the public about it.
Battistelli cares about (or knows about) science and statistics as much as waste management does. He makes up for this ignorance with attitude that terrifies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.03.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli is killing the EPO, whose job should be to ensure proper examination of applications (not patent inflation or revenue), and accuses those who are trying to save the EPO of “defamation”
Summary: A look at some of the puff pieces that the EPO, boosted by a massive PR budget and outside help from FTI Consulting (to the tune of nearly $1,000,000 per year), has managed to stick on the Web
Left unchallenged, lies can stick. We urge all of our readers — no matter where they are from — to pressure media to properly cover what’s really going on inside the EPO (the important story, not PR) because the EPO’s unethical PR team sure is pressuring journalists right now, backed by a massive PR agency. Journalists can hopefully pay attention to both sides of the argument, not just paid PR people. We already see some Wall Street media and other financial media playing along with this propaganda. We also see some general news sites going along with this [1, 2, 3, 4], not to mention patent maximalists [1, 2, 3] (some horrible spin there, including UPC propaganda from EPO-funded sites like IAM, paid through FTI Consulting).
“It would do nothing but exacerbate “social unrest in the organisation.” That’s what yellow unions (or the perception thereof) lead to.”The above article (screenshot at the top), just published by IP Watch after a previous (very recent) puff piece, refers to what looks like a yellow union as follows: “The EPO president also announced the signature of an agreement with one trade union against a background of social unrest in the organisation.”
It would do nothing but exacerbate “social unrest in the organisation.” That’s what yellow unions (or the perception thereof) lead to. Just how much damage does Battistelli intend to cause before he finally jumps ship (even against his will)? As this new comment has just put it: “FFPE-EPO statute exists only in Dutch. Its Art. 3(1) allows membership only for ambtenaar van EOB bij de vestiging Den Haag. (Employees in The Hague)”
“Battistelli’s spin is getting not only ridiculous but also outright laughable.”Battistelli will be left red-faced/blush when we finally do our detailed stories about the small trade union and his secret salary that Kongstad kept approving (it’s still a secret by the way). In the above interview/article Battistelli said about the grim situation (with the Council) that “these allegations were the result of a defamation campaign,” but he didn’t say these were false. Battistelli also “said his salary is €300,000 per year,” according to IP Watch, but he’s going to regret saying that. “Battistelli said he never thought patent were the only solution,” IP Watch noted towards the end. Well, ask him about software patents and copyrights then. Why does the Battistelli-led EPO keep promoting (and often granting) software patents in Europe when software developers like myself almost unequivocally want just copyrights? Why is he ignoring the EPC — on the basis of which the EPO exists in the first place? Why does he snub European law and international law?
Battistelli’s spin is getting not only ridiculous but also outright laughable. Battistelli was “underlining that there had been no strikes in 2015,” according to IP Watch. That’s a classic straw man argument. He said nothing about an all-time high in protests and he also hopes nobody will notice the imminent strike that he's trying to crush along with his Iron Lady (Bergot).
We found it funny that Battistelli resorts to the old/outdated/typical propaganda points which we tackled here before. He uses “ISO9001 certification” for bragging rights (compared to other continents!), but ISO is Swiss (Europe!) and in our assessment it is deeply corrupt (you pay for what you get!). Why has the Switzerland-based IP Watch once again done such shallow or shoddy journalism? The site is usually decent, but not when it comes to EPO. Not anymore anyway…
“We found it funny that Battistelli resorts to the old/outdated/typical propaganda points which we tackled here before.”“The backlog decreased by 66 percent,” IP Watch says about Battistelli’s claims, but it didn’t explain how. Rubber-stamping of applications en masse? As per this leak?
“According to Battistelli,” IP Watch added, “reforms started to pay off in 2015. In terms of production, there was an increase of 14 percent in the number of files treated in one year. Patents granted and published rose by 6 percent, he said.”
“Battistelli is to the EPO what Nixon or Bush were to US and watch/recall which political party and politicians Battistelli is affiliated with in France.”See the above leak. Battistelli is killing the EPO pretty fast. The EPO under Battistelli now embraces the USPTO approach, which is grant (almost) everything, and fast! Whatever is left behind Battistelli when he leaves the EPO is a big mess that needs cleaning up, including patent quality. “EP” patents now include a lot of low-quality patents which Battistelli is evidently in denial about (even when European courts invalidate these).
Finally, Battistelli says EPO “is the best in the world in terms of quality,” but he means WAS, not is. The EPO has become Europe’s shame/embarrassment for many reasons and he put an end to its worldwide leadership. He took all the golden eggs and squeezed to death the goose, probably in order to give the impression that he was “successful”. He’s a “wartime President” by his own choice/making. What a horrible President. Battistelli is to the EPO what Nixon or Bush were to US and watch/recall which political party and politicians Battistelli is affiliated with in France. It figures. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What’s not in the photo op says more than what’s in it
Source: Wikipedia on yellow unions
Summary: Why there are legitimate reasons to believe that FFPE-EPO is essentially being used as a yellow union, in order to help crush SUEPO and incite the media against SUEPO
THE EPO is having a propaganda day today. The rebuttals we wrote yesterday [1, 2] and so far today [1, 2] are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be interesting to know what role — if any — the Washington-based FTI Consulting plays in this propaganda. It does, after all, receive nearly 80,000 euros per month from the EPO for propaganda.
Merpel has published an article titled “EPO deal with trade union – not what it seems” in which she wrote:
In fact, as today’s announcement makes clear, the union that has signed the MoU is FFPE-EPO. What is the significance of this? Well, FFPE-EPO exists only in the Hague office of the EPO, and is believed to have about 70 members, whereas SUEPO has about 3400 (about half of the EPO staff, and increasing over recent years). While any union recognition is to be welcomed, the concern is that the EPO is trying to present this as showing that all is well, when in fact, with the overwhelmingly larger union, the disciplinary sanctions remain against the officials and there is no sign that a dialogue is possible at all. The social situation remains in a toxic state, and, under the current management, seems likely to stay that way.
The reports of the Board 28 meeting from last month suggested that perhaps the Administrative Council meeting this month on 16/17 March might be a turning point. Merpel still hopes that it will be, and that today’s announcement will not be used to suggest that the social and industrial issues within the EPO’s workforce area already being resolved.
Among the early comments we see:
Indeed the Union is a little unlikely. First it is only open to staff in The Hague (so isn’t an ‘EPO’ Union per se) and was originally set up for Dutch members of staff (they felt unfairly treated with regard to not being eligible for expat benefits so may also include other Hague staff not eligible for expat rights). Secondly, even Dutch colleagues are in the dark and the public pages of their website were last updated in 2008. If the committee hasn’t changed in more than 7 years then they must be popular. On the other hand they have no elected staff representatives despite the voting rules having been changed (unilaterally by BB) to prevent block voting of Suepo members. Their support seems minimal.
Next Tuesday there is an office-wide strike vote. Staff are not allowed to campaign for it and any communication is limited to 50 people (although nobody would dare to send even one – Emails with the word Suepo are blocked too). I guess next Tuesday we and the Administrative Council will see any fruits of this MoU.
One person asks: “Has anyone seen the MoU?”
We are going to publish it later. We received some leaked material.
“It seems only one of the faces is actually FFPE-EPO, all the rest are either EPO management or FFPE-European Council, which is a different branch of the FFPR organization.”
–AnonymousAnother person uses sarcasm with reversal and says: “It is indeed most pleasing to see that the status of the EPO has finally been recognised by the FFPE.”
“If you need a larger Photo to identify the miscreants,” wrote a person to us, there is one at the EPO’s Web site. [via this press release which targets the media]
This person added: “It seems only one of the faces is actually FFPE-EPO, all the rest are either EPO management or FFPE-European Council, which is a different branch of the FFPR organization.”
This in itself is interesting (if true). The image metadata (above) says: “EPO signs MoU with trade union FFPE-EPO (From left to right: EPO Vice-President DG5 Raimund Lutz; FFPE Vice-Chair Aldert De Haan, EPO Vice-President DG2 Alberto Casado; President FFPE European Council Simon Coates, EPO Vice-President DG4 Željko Topić; EPO President Benoît Battistelli, EPO Principal Director Human Resources Elodie Bergot, Federal President FFPE Council of Europe John Parsons, FFPE-EPO Chair Samuel van der Bijl, President FFPE European Commission Pierre-Philippe Bacri, EPO Vice-President DG1 Guillaume Minnoye.”
Only one person, Samuel van der Bijl, is from FFPE-EPO, so this is probably true.
One other new comment states:
The President recently dismissed two leading SUEPO officials. I wonder how much commitment is behind the FFPE-EPO signatures, considering these circumstances
And once again we see the EPO publish information which is incomplete, to say the least. The publication should include the relevant facts – see comment #1: about 70 members, only in The hague. The EPO should not be able to claim immunity for such publications.
SUEPO and interested third parties should be given the possibility to challenge this and other publications, as is the case for newspaper articles etc. The EPO itself is not shy to place such request, e.g. to Techrights.
We can’t help but wonder if Battistelli and those loyal to him deal with a union which they themselves created or at least groomed/propped up for their own selfish purposes. One person wrote to us and said: “Just wanted to share my thought that FFPE unions Actionszenen remind me a lot of AUB, a “Union” set up and funded by Siemens. Timing of The MoU is too much of a “coincidence”. Would really like to know what Team Battistelli have or promised them…”
Looking into the Siemens example (also in Germany), here’s what we have: “In his first public comments since the scandal broke in February, Mr Schelsky is quoted as saying: “I was supposed to build up an umbrella organisation with the money. And that is what I did . . . I was secretly employed as a lobbyist for Siemens. There was a clear order from the top of the company.”
‘Mr Schelsky’s comments further raise the pressure on Siemens and its management. Siemens is suspected of helping finance the AUB to build a counterweight to its main IG Metall union. The AUB affair is separate from a financially far bigger bribery investigation into several divisions of Siemens.
“Siemens is suspected of helping finance the AUB to build a counterweight to its main IG Metall union. The AUB affair is separate from a financially far bigger bribery investigation into several divisions of Siemens.”
–CorpWatch“Siemens declined to comment on Mr Schelsky’s claims but said it was co-operating with authorities in both cases to clear up the matter as quickly as possible. It has recently lost both its chief executive and chairman as a result of the scandals. Both deny any wrongdoing. Johannes Feldmayer, a management board member, is a suspect in the AUB affair and was briefly remanded in custody earlier this year. He is currently on leave from Siemens at his own request and his contract will not be renewed at the end of the year.”
Siemens is close to the EPO (the President and the EPO even pose for photos together — some of which we used here before!) and the EPO recently appointed to head of communications the person whom Siemens had allegedly hired from Transparency International to help address the bribery scandal purely by public perception (reputation laundering).
We are not suggesting that this is enough evidence with which to paint FFPE bogus/yellow union, but we just want to give readers food for thought. Organisations such as the EPO don’t have a reputation for ethics and as we showed here over the years (usually in relation to Microsoft), corrupt officials often end up calling bribes “financial assistance” or “marketing help” (euphemisms). This can sometimes happen in the case of pseudo-unions that are propped up while the other ones are viciously crushed using witchhunts, defamation, mental torture and so on. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.02.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
FFPE represents EPO workers like Daniel Domscheit-Berg (OpenLeaks) represents Wikileaks
Photo credit: Andreas Gaufer, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Summary: The European Patent Office’s current management, which may soon get dismissed, is putting together a little show that gives the impression of peace with trade unions
HILARIOUS or outrageous it may be, depending on one’s mood. The latest publicity stunt from Team Battistelli (not the same as the EPO, which they merely exploit for their own agenda of power and money) is like something out of the propaganda books. Battistelli and his circle smile in their suits next to a bunch of what Soviets would call “useful idiots”; this isn’t ‘the’ union but a tiny group which claims to be one. FFPE is the Daniel Domscheit-Berg of the EPO’s staff. Only under intense pressure from colleagues it expressed solidarity with SUEPO, but those who look closely enough will see how Battistelli et al view and exploit FFPE [2, 2]. FFPE members cannot claim to be passive participants; they know too well how their complicity in this PR stunt would be used against SUEPO and by extension against EPO staff as a whole.
“FFPE members cannot claim to be passive participants; they know too well how their complicity in this PR stunt would be used against SUEPO and by extension against EPO staff as a whole.”Team Battistelli now truly leaves a misleading mess, ensuring that no external observer like a journalist can make sense of things. Battistelli is just trying to mislead media about unions, pretending there is peace. Tomorrow he will try "results", exploiting lack of critical skills and an inability to properly scrutinise the claims. What gives? How much is Battistelli willing to lie to the world in his desperate effort to save his job?
Pathetic. Truly pathetic. More so than Battistelli calling people whom he views as opposition "Nazis". One thing is clear now. Team Battistelli won’t give up with a fight (a dirty fight) that includes lying to journalists, lying to staff, fake letters of ‘support’ etc. Evil all the way. “As for the author of the pathetic letter in support of the President and his management style,” said one comment earlier today, “the information you received from your source is highly likely to be correct because the named PD was indeed assistant of Mr Minnoye prior to her appointment as PD (a well calculated step) and she is a typical product of the BB’s regime, always aligned with those in power. You know the classical kind of person: “lêche….”. This kind of person would do anything in order to please the boss.”
“Team Battistelli won’t give up with a fight (a dirty fight) that includes lying to journalists, lying to staff, fake letters of ‘support’ etc.”It’s not surprising that some people out there, especially people whom the EPO is now willing to recruit and also promote, play ball for the tyrants. They’re being groomed as a reward for their docility. “That IS hilarious,” wrote to us one person [1, 2]. “It’s so fake they even didn’t photoshop some union faces in that picture. As there should be in such “deals” [...] If you groom people for being leeches and backstabbers at your service, what do you think they’d do for you once you need them?”
“You can even see the strings,” another person remarked about the photo. For those willing to take the risk of clicking an epo.org link, here it is. The totally Orwellian nonsense contained just one tiny photo (11 people in full body size with just 264 pixels across, 172 top to bottom). Well, the photo is so tiny that I can hardly even recognise a handful, and those whom I can recognise I already know too well not to recognise even with just 10-20 RGB pixels making up their faces.
“FFPE has about 4 people in it…”
–AnonymousThis is what’s known as “Photo op”, which Wikipedia defines as “short for photograph opportunity (photo opportunity), is an arranged opportunity to take a photograph of a politician, a celebrity, or a notable event.”
Wikipedia correctly notes that this “term has acquired a negative connotation, referring to a carefully planned pseudo-event, often masqueraded as news. It is associated with politicians who perform tasks such as planting trees, picking up litter, and visiting senior citizens, often during election cycles, with the intent of photographers catching the events on film, generating positive publicity.”
One reader asked us earlier today: “Have you seen the EPO homepage???”
People are starting to notice, no doubt…
“FFPE has about 4 people in it,” told us this reader. “FFPE only exists in The Hague.”
“The longer Team Battistelli stays, the worse things will get for everyone, jeopardising everybody’s jobs.”Well, we heard estimates of ~20 members at most, but they don’t want to say (despite queries), so it’s quite likely less. They’re close enough to the Battistelli-led circle that they hang out with Bergot, based on comments we saw. It’s called ‘controlled opposition’ in some circles. The “good boy”, i.e. FFPE, unlike the naughty boy (SUEPO) is how it works. Classic!
How can anyone not see what Battistelli is hoping to achieve here? Propaganda galore.
Rebuttal to the latest Team Battistelli lies (regarding results) will be published here tomorrow. Team Battistelli is quickly burning any remnant of reputation that the EPO ever earned. They hate the EPO so much — unlike SUEPO (loving enough and caring to suggest improvements) — that they lie to everyone and think that this will somehow stick. The longer Team Battistelli stays, the worse things will get for everyone, jeopardising everybody’s jobs. The sooner Battistelli and his goons leave, the quicker the EPO will get back on its feet and restabilise. The EPO cannot coexist with Europe (or the EU) when it not only has a conflict with public interests but also with its own workers’ interests and European law. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Having broadened the scope of patents and changed the definition of what constitutes patent application etc. the EPO is now ‘cooking the books’, as the saying goes, and will soon attempt to claim positive change while the Office is actually collapsing due to poor and famously abusive management
THE EPO truly deserves flack for a lot of reasons. One of them is that the EPO made it a lot easier to get granted patents in all sorts of domains (even software), essentially by broadening scope, limiting examination (self-imposed speedup), ultimately inheriting or mimicking the worst aspects of the USPTO. Watch this new tweet from the EPO. They’re about to bring out propaganda tomorrow.
“They’re about to bring out propaganda tomorrow.”To give another example, one which is only a couple of hours old, suddenly the EPO pretends to respect and obey the EPC. In reality, however, it obeys neither the EPC (as such) nor European law. Expect none of this to be mentioned in tomorrow’s ‘report’.
Another new article, this one from Ante Wessels (FFII), says that “EU commission goes into denial mode regarding effect ISDS on software patents” and states: “Companies could use investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in trade agreements to challenge refusals to grant software patents, FFII’s Benjamin Henrion argued during the 24 February 2016 TTIP stakeholder’s presentations. Successful challenges could undermine the European Patent Convention’s exclusion of software, the recent US Supreme Court’s limits on patentability, and Congressional patent reform.”
“Therein exists a serious issue which we addressed many times before. German courts, in spite of the EPC, often let software patents be, even some of Microsoft’s (when used against Linux).”We already mentioned, at least in passing, the dismissive attitude towards these concerns. Also new is Bastian Best, a German patent lawyer, saying this morning that “In Germany, math applied for a technical purpose IS patentable,” citing his latest article which says: “While the impact of Alice on US software patents is still heavily discussed, 2016 has so far not produced any revolutionary software-related decisions by the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) or the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG), however, has been quite busy.”
Therein exists a serious issue which we addressed many times before. German courts, in spite of the EPC, often let software patents be, even some of Microsoft’s (when used against Linux). As one response put it this morning: “Technical purpose, eh? Sounds familiar. This crap harms our economy and freedom.”
Whatever the EPO’s PR team says tomorrow, many questions need to be fired back. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.01.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: In an effort to defend Battistelli and his ‘circle’, who have lost the support of the Administrative Council (AC), a new slew of recycled material (the above is from January but published only yesterday)
THE EPO is in ‘damage control’ mode right now. The mode isn’t entirely new, but now it culminates in lying to journalists. It looks like the Battistelli-led effort to circulate a letter in his own support backfired pretty badly. Based on this new comment: “A new persistent rumour in the EPO is that, since the directors decided in DG1direct not to sign the paper supporting Mr Battistelli (this is much more than a rumour), the principal directors agreed that the paper should be signed by them and sent on behalf of the principal directors only. A support letter from higher management will of course not carry as much weight as a letter from the directors.”
We don’t know yet if that’s a fact, but we shall soon find out. Meanwhile, to quote this new article composed by highly-regarded patent lawyers in central Europe:
Kongsted [sic] reportedly explains in his letter to the AC members it was unavoidable to send a formal request to Battistelli, as it had turned out to be impossible to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the EPO president. The Techrights blog published what it says is a copy of Kongsted’s letter.
According to the IP Kat blog, the letter ‘was shown to Mr Battistelli at a meeting [with Board 28, the presidium of the AC, ed.] on February 17th, but Mr Battistelli rejected the document and questioned the legal basis for certain of the AC’s requests (…) before walking out of the meeting’.
Benoît Battistelli has not reacted publicly on what’s going on at the moment. A letter from the EPO management – it isn’t clear who have signed it – has appeared however, urging the AC members not to support the Resolution (Techrights, again, has published what is said to be a copy of the letter).
The Resolution of Kongsted will be discussed and voted on during the Administrative Council’s meeting 16 and 17 March 2016 in Munich. According to Art 10 (1) of the European Patent Convention ‘The European Patent Office shall be managed by the President, who shall be responsible for its activities to the Administrative Council’.
It remains to be seen whether the management letter will help Battistelli. An AC meeting last December showed he does no longer have the traditional support from the Council. His controversial proposals for the reform of the Boards of Appeal were rejected, according to a report of the German legal website JUVE, and a new procedure to handle the reform was initiated. Earlier, the Presidium of the BoA, the Association of Members of the BoA (AMBA) and the president of epi had written to the AC, complaining Battistelli ignored the views of the Boards and their criticism on his reform proposals, although he maintained he had broad support for them.
[...]
However, sources of the Dutch daily De Telegraaf said it’s likely that Battistelli will step down soon and that he has already demanded ten year salaries in return, which adds up to 18 million euro.
“The EPO hasn’t reacted to questions by Kluwer IP Law on the reported tensions,” noted the author. Sometimes the EPO claims that Battistelli’s job is secure, but sometimes it says nothing at all. Well, silence can say a lot sometimes and Kluwer Patent Blog shows a certain change (potentially) in the media strategy of the PR team.
“The ‘problem’ with EPO staff right now is that it ‘dares’ to ask too many questions and it scares the ‘superiors’.”Kongstad (the AC Chairman) is the only one in upper management who knew the salary of Battistelli or at least signed it off, based on our sources. 1.8 million/annum in salary for Battistelli? Brimelow would be jealous; unlike Battistelli, she did disclosure her salary and it was nowhere close to that. 6 times the salary of the President of Europe with a term almost one decade old? We are still trying to verify/ascertain this. Either way, Battistelli is finished. He won’t finish his term and the scandal over his secret salary hasn’t even started yet. Based on some sources (the subject of investigation/verification at Techrights for a number of weeks), Battistelli’s salary is nearly double that of the EU president, but some say 6 times (or at least 4 times) more. Kongstad knows the exact number. As AC Chairman, at least for now, he should be protected, as he’s the only person who can fire Battistelli even if he helped him in the past. Kongstad (AC Chairman) knew all along how much Battistelli had his circle pay him. We still wait to see the final outcome of the Bygmalion Affair. There too a lot of money circulated, even fraudulently (in the case of Sarkozy). It’s a lot harder to brainwash (and make docile) patent examiners than it is to brainwash 18-year-old troops who obey an elders’ orders unquestionably. The ‘problem’ with EPO staff right now is that it ‘dares’ to ask too many questions and it scares the ‘superiors’.
Some people now joke about the “villa” or the “golden parachute” that’s expected for Monsieur Battistelli (as an undeserved departure gift). How can he even expect to receive severance pay after all that he has done? One of the famous victims of Željko Topić (the EPO Vice-President and union buster) is in the hospital right now. He suffered a lot from Topić, who had already left a deadly warpath in Croatia; there are even suicides there, just like at the EPO. Remember that the problem at the EPO isn’t just Battistelli but also many of the people whom he brought in to become his de facto protégés and protégées. When EPO-funded sites cover the latest EPO situation it expectedly echoes the defensive narrative, wherein Battistelli is the victim, not the abuser who left a bunch of victims. To quote IAM (as of today):
Against this backdrop, events at the European Patent Office have taken a dramatic turn, with the leak of a letter from Jesper Kongstad, the director general of the Danish patent office and chairman of the EPO’s Administrative Council. Sent to all members of the council, the letter outlines a series of disagreements with the office’s president Benoît Battistelli and proposes that a recent Battistelli decision to fire several members of the trade union SUEPO over alleged misconduct be subject to external review.
The Kongstad letter is the first tangible sign that Battistelli may no longer enjoy the full support of the Administrative Council. It is all the more noteworthy because Kongstad and Battistelli are long-term collaborators who campaigned on a joint ticket during the drawn-out process that saw Battistelli first elected president back in early 2010. If Kongstad no longer has full confidence in Battistelli’s decision-making, that would leave the president significantly exposed.
Indeed, the Dutch tabloid De Telegraaf has reported (link in Dutch) that Battistelli is now planning to step down and has demanded €18 million – equivalent, the newspaper says, to 10 years’ salary – as severance pay. There is no real indication currently that this is actually the case, though, while the amount quoted is a clearly ridiculous figure (though one that will circulate and gain in currency as there is no transparency around the president’s actual package).
Speaking to me yesterday evening an EPO spokesperson expressed surprise at the leak, but did confirm that the letter was genuine. However, I was also told that it is outdated: later, more conciliatory notes are now circulating that emphasise that many of the points raised in Kongstad’s original correspondence relating to, for example, the future of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and social dialogue with office employees are in the process of being satisfactorily addressed. But if that is the case, none of them have been seen in public; while what is undoubtedly the main bone of contention – the future of the SUEPO officials who have been fired or downgraded – does seem to remain a point of difference.
Another site which helps Battistelli’s site now says “the organisation has been for three years the victim of a defamation campaign”; no, Mr. Battistelli disgraced it. There was no “defamation” when people simply spoke about what Topić had done in Croatia. As one Twitter user put it the other day, “EPO-like institutions have always homegrown zealous servants aplenty. They’d offer their zeal to anyone being bossy enough, I guess.” The headline of the interview is wrong by the way. "Investigations" should be rewritten "Union-Busting".
“There was no “defamation” when people simply spoke about what Topić had done in Croatia.”Another person said: “According to the KING everybody is committing a serious misconduct except himself, right?”
This was said in reference to the latest interview with Battistelli, which was actually conducted in January, based on what IP Watch told me. We are already in March, so what took so long to publish? When the EPO led by Battistelli says it’s trying to introduce reforms it means “reforms” in the same sense that Lenin meant reforms. As a longtime critic of the EPO (and victim of the EPO's SLAPP) put it, it’s “surprising that with Battistelli there could be other subjects than his coming resignation” (which is widely expected unless one asks the EPO directly).
It is not even mentioned at all in the interview because, as IP Watch explained to me last night, the interview is from January. Well, Battistelli is almost certainly about to resign. Everyone knows it, but there are no articles about this in patent lawyers’ sites. The EPO either refuses to comment on it or simply denies it. They have a history of lying to the press and to staff.
“Well, Battistelli is almost certainly about to resign. Everyone knows it, but there are no articles about this in patent lawyers’ sites.”In the interview, which we prefer not to quote too sparingly (it’s a lot of Battistelli lies with loaded promotional questions such as “Memorandum of Understanding that you are trying to get with trade unions?”), the interviewer is playing along with the EPO’s PR strategy. There are even UPC softball questions, complete with euphemisms such as “global patent harmonisation stand” (patent harmonisation is an old term, used in the media well before they came up with “Unitary Patent”).
To name some other bits from the article, Battistelli basically says he is “very proud and most of the staff is supportive” of him and his policies. That’s a lie. Or maybe he’s just delusional. He also says “I accepted a demand of the Administrative Council to serve”; well, they’re about to fire him, so the use of words like “accepted a demand… to serve” is rather laughable. Recall how he treats delegates. Battistelli does not want to step down, resign, or quit. But he’d have to (and would) if otherwise he’d get the sack. Resignation would be a face-saving move. That’s where he is right now. But first he wishes to ensure that he receives a lot of money.
“MIP (Managing Intellectual Property) has been trying to do an interview with Kongstad, but they tell me that he is not even responding to their request.”In summary, it seems as though Battistelli will step down soon. People who read the IP Watch article (interview/propaganda with softball questions to Battistelli) must remember that it is well out of date (this took place back in January). Based on what I heard from reliable sources, the EPO’s PR team/department is sanitising questions as a condition to conducting interviews with Battistelli. Self- censorship is thus assured. Self-censorship is how the EPO has been getting a lot of puff pieces out there, not even with FTI Consulting directly involved (FTI Consulting paid IAM, which wrote the soft piece above, and earlier today IAM staff, Joff Wild, told me that they don’t know how much FTI Consulting had paid).
We already wrote a great deal about the IP Watch article online. Will this essentially be Battistelli’s “I’m not a crook” goodbye speech? Will there ever be more interviews? MIP (Managing Intellectual Property) has been trying to do an interview with Kongstad, but they tell me that he is not even responding to their request. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 1:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sheep can be bamboozled by the patent wolves in sheep clothing
Summary: A roundup of recent articles about software patents and how media which targets patent lawyers (and is often managed and authored by them) covered the subject
THE US patent system has attracted worldwide ridicule for patent trolls and for low-quality patents. It got a lot worse in recent years as the number of granted patents doubled (without innovation actually doubling). A new article by Daniel Nazer from the EFF, who dunked his article in at least a couple of places [1, 2], is putting to shame a software patent. “This month,” he wrote, “we feature yet another patent that takes an ordinary business practice and does it on a computer. Our winner is US Patent No. 8,738,435, titled “Method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services.” As you might guess from its title, the patent claims the idea of sending a personalized marketing message using a computer.”
“Who benefits here other than the patent ‘industry’?”These patents tend to be as trivial as they sound. No wonder a lot of patent trolls strike everywhere and people are shocked by the poor patent quality at the USPTO, where almost every patent application is now successful. To invalidate patents in a court it costs a lot of money, so settlement is often a lot cheaper, even when the patent at hand is provably bogus. Consider Apple’s “Slide-to-Unlock” patent, which we wrote about before (even years ago). Apple’s latest patent loss was covered by Professor Dennis Crouch a few days later and IAM meanwhile showed that it’s rather upset because phones are to be sold at a price less than patent tax (‘royalties’). This massive patent tax, which can artificially bring the price of phones up to $1000 apiece, helps patent laywers and maximalists. Why did it take so many years for the courts to finally be convinced that the stupid “Slide-to-Unlock” lunacy is not patent-eligible? Will Apple appeal (or petition to appeal), ensuring this drags on in the courts for several more years to come? Who benefits here other than the patent ‘industry’? Who foots the bill if not Samsung, which can pass down the cost of litigation to customers?
“They make it sound like terrible news. Well, it is perhaps for patent lawyers and other patent maximalists.”The patent maximalists have just noted “a record year [2015] for” realisation that many patents granted by the USPTO should never have been granted in the first place. It’s about PTAB, which we wrote about the other day. “This is the year the US patent pendulum swings back,” said another new headline from patent maximalists, noting: “It’s been tough going for patent owners in the US over recent years, with legislation, the courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO increasing uncertainty over validity and enforcement; this has reduced the incentives alleged infringers have to make deals, while also pushing down patent values. Now, though, things may be about to change…”
They make it sound like terrible news. Well, it is perhaps for patent lawyers and other patent maximalists. “Examiner’s comment regarding use of DDR Holdings in 101/Alice rejection,” was noted by Patent Buddy the other day, “everyone argues that case and we don’t know what it means.”
“Objective analysis or salesmanship?”Another site of patent maximalists (although a more restrained one when it comes to that) took note of PTAB and asked: “Does the Patent Act permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to make inter partes review institution decisions?”
In simple terms, all the above are very much concerned about the ability to kill patents even without them being brought before a court (patent litigation). What we strive to show here is the sheer bias, where those who profit from patents but don’t actually make anything bemoan the new reality (post-2012 and post-2014, one being a reform and the latter being Alice at SCOTUS).
Trying to get software patents in Singapore? Well, as viewed from patent maximalists’ eyes (MIP), that’s all fine and dandy. Trying to get software patents in Korea? HANOL Intellectual Property & Law is trying to help with its ‘opinions’ and ‘articles’. The situation is explained by patent lawyers in Korea. Objective analysis or salesmanship?
“We blame this on self-serving patent lawyers steering it all, from media to policy.”Looking at IAM, another one of those patent maximalists’ sites, even the Chinese patent bubble is noted there [1, 2]. Surely they hope that not only Europe but east Asia too will follow the terrible model of the US patent system. Here they are fawning and drooling over patent trolls in Europe — trolls from whom they can make money. Patent thickets and patent taxes are being broadened even further with all sorts of aggregates like WiLAN, so patent lawyers show some glee (with revenue steams like these, what lawyers would not be jubilant?) and say: “This deal comes amid what has been a transformative period for WiLAN. Last June it acquired a portfolio of around 7,000 assets formerly owned by Qimonda. It followed that by announcing that it had agreed a privateering deal with Freescale Semiconductor in which Freescale agreed to transfer more than 3,300 patents to the NPE” (it means patent troll).
There is so much misinformation out there about patents. We blame this on self-serving patent lawyers steering it all, from media to policy. Technical people must at least try to get involved and get the record straight, otherwise they’ll get harmed.
Pieter Hintjens, the former President of the FFII, said some days ago: “A lesson I learned many years ago, fighting software patents: if your communities don’t do politics, politics will do you.” He then added: “To do politics: identify your enemy, understand them, then raise their costs to an unbearable level.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA