03.18.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Not a guillotine reference but the technical name of a union-busting or movement-crushing strategy
Lernaean Hydra
Summary: By attacking SUEPO, hoping this would somehow make it go away, Battistelli has in fact just made it stronger and his ‘boss’ at the Administrative Council is growing impatient, based on a new interview with Managing IP (MIP)
THINGS have only been heating up at the EPO as shortly after the meeting of the Administrative Council the suspended/dismissed people at the EPO gained more power/popularity; Battistelli’s aggressive actions merely served to legitimise them. This made them look like martyrs in a sense and this even united the staff (united against the management, which is increasingly perceived as illegitimate, with record numbers in attendance at protests). By refusing to being them back (whether pending an independent investigation or not) Battistelli digs himself deeper into/inside a hole. It’s going to end up with Battistelli as the sole casualty.
Based on new information that we have received, SUEPO elections have ended. Here is a message about it:
A quick summary of the SUEPO elections:
17 Feb 2016: SUEPO AGM
After a vote SUEPO Munich statutes were amended so that the term of office of the elected SUEPO Committee was changed from 1 to 2 years.
10 March 2016 – 16 March 2016: Voting period for the new SUEPO Munich Committee
16 March 2016: Election results announced
57% turn out. 1240 people voted (up to 7 votes each).
The following candidates (among others) were declared elected (number of votes in parentheses):
Ion Brumme (1142)
Malika Weaver (1103)
Elizabeth Hardon (1100)
16 March 2016: Resolution adopted by the Administrative Council
Requests the EPOffice President –
…
to achieve, within the framework of the tripartite negotiations, an MOU simultaneously with both trade unions, which would have no pre-conditions or exclude any topics from future discussions.
18 March 2016: Constitution of Munich SUEPO Committee announced
Chairperson: Elizabeth Hardon (sacked and banned from EPO)
Vice-Chairman: Ion Brumme (sacked and banned from EPO)
Treasurer: Malika Weaver
This means that the staff will be represented by people whom Battistelli wrongly thought he had eliminated. How foolish was he. As a reader of ours put it: “it was most interesting that Elizabeth Hardon is now back to annoy Battistelli for another two years, if he doesn’t sort it out with her he is possibly facing the sack, and she is still not allowed inside the EPO! The last SUEPO AGM had to be held in a local hall precisely for that reason.”
MIP has been trying to speak to the man who can fire Battistelli for quite some time (they even told us about it after we had published a leaked message from him). James Nurton has finally managed to speak to him and the resultant article is titled “EPO’s Admin Council chair expects action by June”. This result should be, based on many people’s expectations, Battistelli’s departure, as he sure isn’t willing to tolerate his opposition or recognise the real staff union. Here is the publicly-accessible part of the article (behind paywall):
The EPO’s Administrative Council has called on the Organisation’s management and staff “to work diligently and in good faith” to find a way out of the current crisis, as its Chair Jesper Kongstad told Managing IP in an exclusive interview
The Admin Council, which comprises representatives of all 38 contracting states, met for two days this week as scheduled.
Following the meeting, on Thursday night, it issued a communiqué recognising the social unrest, the controversy over disciplinary proceedings, the need for structural reform of the Boards of Appeal and the role of the Council.
Battistelli’s ‘damage control’ carries on with PR people promoting his inane little post (warning: epo.org link) about a meaningless ‘milestone’. Too bad Benoît Battistelli does not tell staff anything about the privatisation aspects associated with those numbers, as covered in the following older series of posts about another Frenchman.
- Revolving Doors of High-Level EPO Management: Jacques Michel and the Questel Deal With the EPO
- Jacques Michel (Former EPO VP1), Benoît Battistelli’s EPO, and the Leak of Internal Staff Data to Michel’s Private Venture
- Europatis: “Turnover of €211,800 and Zero Employees”
- Loose Data ‘Protection’ and Likely Privacy Infringements at the EPO: Here’s Who Gets Employees’ Internal Data
- Summary of the EPO-Europatis Series
Battistelli is still deep inside a hole and we expect him not to last for much longer. The numbers he presents often turn out to be bunk (making him harder to trust). The only way for the Organisation to begin to repair its public image is to sack the President of the Office, or convince him to amicably resign (with whatever severance package he dreams of). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Apple, Patents at 6:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Apple, Patentes at 3:53 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Segway reclama propiedad de hovering ahora
Sumario: Un bosquejo de desarrollos reciéntes en los Estados Unidos, donde compañías que no son muy grandes (no simplemente trolles de patentes) utilizan las patentes de software para sacar ventaja sobre la competición…al simplemente enjuiciar a la competición
EMC Agresión de Patentes
Casi toda compañíá que acumula y amasa patentes eventualmente se convierte en un MATÓN de patentes. Militarización de las patentes es como un plan de seguros, red de salvación o un Plan B para tiempos en que la compañía este a duras penas. Miren a Apple, Microsoft y más reciéntemente Facebook y IBM. A EMC tampoco le esta yendo bien y de acuerdo a noticias de ayer y hoy nos recuerdan [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], la compañía ahora usa patentes para enjuiciar a sus rivales. Como lo resumió El Register, hablamos de:
Patent 6,915,475 – EMC la retiró del juicio.
Patent 8,375,187 – La Corte del Distrito sumariamente falló en contra de EMC.
Patent 7,434,015 – La Corte del District encontró que Pure infringió aspectos de ella; el juicio de patentes la declaró valida y otorgó compensaciones.
Patent 6,904,556 – El Jurado del juicio declaró que Pure no infringió nada.
Patent 7,373,464 – El Jurado del juicio declaró que Pure no infringió nada.
EMC luchará cada vez más contra el software libre y otras hebras perturbadores de la tecnología, por lo que recurrirá más a la agresión de patente para generar ingresos. Estén preparados. EMC es dueño de VMware, la que es gobernada por gente de Microsoft actualmente.
OpenTV Muestra a Apple la Ira de las Patentes de Software… en Alemania
“EMC luchará cada vez más contra el software libre y otras hebras perturbadores de la tecnología, por lo que recurrirá más a la agresión de patente para generar ingresos.”Apple debería unirse a la lucha contra las patentes de software en vez de usarlas contra Linux para beneficio de los abogados. Pero Apple es muy terco y arrogante para admitir su error. Basado en este nuevo reportaje de Reuters, Apple reciéntemente ha perdido otro caso de patentes, esta vez en Alemania (la que notoriamente es leniente en patentes de software comparado al resto de Europa).
Nos tropezamos con una docena de artículos acerca de esto en la tarde, no porque es importante pero por que es Apple. Los medios corporativos trabajan de esa manera. 18 artículos acerca de este resultado (dentro de 8 horas) mostró [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Esto puede ser esperamos discutido en el contexto de la esfera de patentes, simplemente como en el caso del FBI – caso que demuestra la fascinación de los medios con Apple. Si no se tratase de Apple, de ninguna manera hubiera un simple artículo acerca de ello. Los medios que buscan ganancias escriben acerca de lo que traiga ingresos/golpes (ganancias como prioridad), he aquí les encantan escribir acerca de Apple. Sin embargo, en ninguno de esos artículos encontramos nada que cuestione la existencia de patentes de software, que estan en la corriente.
“Hoverboards” Asesinado Por Patentes
“Mucha gente siempre ha querido “hoverboards”; así, gracias a las patentes pueden ser que tengan que esperar para siempre, o simplemente encontrar que su precio es fuera de su alcance.”Apple ama usar al ITC para presionar a las compañíás que enjuician a rendirse y pagar. Este nuevo artículo nos ayuda a recordar el rol de los embargos en el mercado. Pieter Hintjens (antiguo Presidente del FFII) lo puso sarcásticamente al decir: “Una vez más las patentes tuvieron éxito en asesinar a la competencia. Sin patentes ¿nadie inventará algo? ¿verdad?”
Aquí hay un artículo acerca de ello, de un oponente de los trolles de patentes:
Una queja de patentes que Segway llenó con al US International Trade Commission en 2014 ha resultado prohibiendo una gran variedad de “transportes personales” que infringen algunas de sus patentes.
El Miércoles, la ITC emitió una exclusión general prohibiéndo varios tipos de aparatos auto-balanceables, frecuéntemente llamados “hoverboards.” El caso pudiera afectar a todo el mercado ya que una orden de exclusión general es el más poderoso remedio de la comisión y puede afectar a partes no envueltas en la investigación.
También hay una limitada order de exclusión emitida directamente contra los productos de varias compañías Chinas enjuiciadas por Segway. Sólo una de aquellas respondió y peleó el caso, mientras las otras corrieron con el rabo entre las patas.
Proponentes de los trolles de patentes (IAM es incluso financiado por ellos) lo puso diferentemente poniéndole lápiz labial al embargo de l puerco:
La Comisión Internaciona lde Comercio (ITC) esta semana envolvió un caso de infracción de patentes Sección 337 iniciado por Segway, y su decisión tendrá gran impacto en el mercado de transportes auto-balanceables, que regresaron a vida el año pasado. En una tórcida, Ninebot, – una de las compañías Chinas nombradas como respondentes en la queja original – se convertirá en el beneficiario clave del dictámen en favor de Segway.
Mucha gente siempre ha querido “hoverboards”; así, gracias a las patentes pueden ser que tengan que esperar para siempre, o simplemente encontrar que su precio es fuera de su alcance.
Section 101 (Patentes de Software Muy Abstractas)
“¿Está la EPO prestando atención cuando una compañíá Europea, Mercedes se convierte en al victima de las patentes de software?”Las patentes de software están bajo presión en los Estados Unidos ahora mismo. Algunos artículos antigues del Bilski Blog hablan de los rechazos de la Sección 101 y dá nuevos ejemplos de patentes que son encontradas inválidas bajo esa sección. Aquí está el caso de ¨Inteligencia Vehicular¨, del que reciéntemente escribimos mucho. Ellos han tomado al gigante, Mercedes-Benz, en un esfuerzo de sacarle dinero. “Vehicle Intelligence,” escribe Bilski Blog, ¨envolviéndo a la patente U.S. Patent 7,394,392, escrita por un abogado de patentes, en el uso de sistemas expertos para determinar si un operador de equipo -e.g., el chofer de un carro- fuese inhabilitado por intoxicación, fatiga disabilidad física, u otros factores. [....] Bajo el test de Alice, is la idea abstracta es realmente asi de general, entonces usando un sistema experto es ¨significativamente más.¨ Un sistema experto no es un componente nativo or funcionalidad de un genérico ordernador de sistemas, pero un específicamente alto tipo de inteligencia artificial, en ambas diseño, arquitectura y aplicación de otros tipos de sistemas AI. Y si el juego de la patentabilidad es jugada en el sin borders campo de analogía, es fácil discutir que este reclamo es como el reclamo de Diamond v. Diehr, que envolvía contínuamente el medir una variable física (escrutinar al operador del equipo aquí, midiendo la temperatura en el molde de jebe in Diehr) y luego realizando una acción de control en respuesta al resultado (controlar la operación del aparato aquí, abriéndo el molde en Diehr). Sí Diehr was elegible también es esto.¨
Noten el rol del test de Alice. ¿Está la EPO prestando atención cuándo una compañía Europea, Mercedes se vuelve la victima de las patentes de software?
Basados en este último outline de Dennis Crouch, Alice no va a ser desafíado (por lo menos en SCOTUS) en cualquier momento cercano. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 6:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Asia, Europe, Patents at 3:04 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Gente que nunca escribieron una simple línea de código entre los grandes proponentes de patentes de software
Sumario: Bristows LLP, también conocida como Bristows UPC, sigue impulsando la UPC (y por extensión por patentes de software) en el Reino Unido
LA Única cosa que notamos al cubrir a la EPO por casi una década es que la misma gente que quiere (y cabildea por) la UPC o sus predecesores (bajo otros nombers) estuvieron/están también a favor de las patentes de software en Europa. No es enteramente una coincidencia por que la UPC guiaría/pavimentaría una puerta abierta a las patentes de software (más de ello ahora mismo, donde los pretextos todavía son requeridos).
“La UPC no esta necesariamente sucediendo, pero los que quieren ejercer presión para que se materialice, quieren que todo el mundo crea que va a suceder y sin duda la pregunta que queda es, ¿Será Gran Bretaña parte de ella?”NO ha sido difícil hacerse familiar con las firmas que consistentemente cabildean por lo de arriba (no indirectamente through cabilderos bajo contrato). Bristows LLP fue siempre uno de ellos (Bristows UPC despues que su nombre fue cambiado por propósitos de mercadeo) y aquí hay una cargada pregunta de Bristows. Para citar: ¨Pregunta de la audiencia en un seminario de Bristows: Si Brexit sucede, ¿habrán jueces Británicos en la #UPC? Respuesta: No.¨
Si Brexit pasa, ¿Perderá Bristows dinero? Respuesta: Si. Porque pusimos todos nuestros huevos en esta canasta.
La UPC no esta necesariamente sucediendo, pero los que quieren ejercer presión para que se materialice, quieren que todo el mundo crea que va a suceder y sin duda la pregunta que queda es, ¿Será Gran Bretaña parte de ella? Hay profecíás autocumpibles en acción y sirven para resaltar la DESHONESTIDAD QUE EXISTE ENTRE ALGUNOS ABOGADOS DE PATENTES. Aparte del Reino Unido, España también se interpone en el camino de la UPC.
“La conclusión es, hay un conflicto que se resume en la lucha de clases (los ricos contra los pobres) y que abarca a la esfera de patentes.”La gente de Bristows presentemente actúan, e.g. en sus blogs, como si Bristows es ahora un ´grupo de apoyo´ (parte de la conspiración) que presionan duramente para que el Reino Unido se una a la UPC) -en el idioma de Cervates que se joda a sí mismo -. Esto es un escándaloso acto dado que el público Británico nunca es consultado; suerte de una colusión, un robo corporativo como TTIP/TPP (con ISDS), así como un ataque a la democracia Británica (para ganancias de aquellos que obviamente ya son super-ricos).
Hablando de cabildeadores de patentes de software, recuerden el reciénte ardoroso debate por patentes de software en India, y miren como los medios corporativos en ese país (Times de India en este caso) dejan que anónimos cabildeadores de patentes de software hablen sin ser interrumpidos (no voces de balance allí). ¨Starup India pueda no arrancar si la oficina de patentes consigue lo que quiere,¨ dice este titular. El caso es obvio, las startups sufren por las patentes de software y no hay nada para que ellos ganen, a diferencia de Microsoft o IBM. Esta suerte de firmas cabildean por patentes de software en India (y en todo el mundo, escuchen Latino America!), y no son nativos de India. Sólo podemos atentar a adivinar quién esta detrás de esta ENGAÑOSO artículo.
La conclusión es, hay un conflicto que se resume en la lucha de clases (los ricos contra los pobres) y que abarca a la esfera de patentes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 6:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado in America, Patents at 6:09 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Remover las patentes de software del sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos todavía no esta en la agenda de Washington
Sumario: Una rápida mirada a algunas noticias de interes del sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos, donde las patentes de software todavía estan en la agenda (pero no de su eliminación oficial)
SCOTUS
VARIOS sitios reciéntemente analizaron casos destinados (probablemente) a alcanzar SCOTUS, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. Aquí esta uno de sus ejemplos. No parece que SCOTUS analizará la cuestión de las patentes de software en un momento cercano, así que el impacto de Alice se mantendra sólido/sin desafíar.
“No parece que SCOTUS analizará la cuestión de las patentes de software en un momento cercano, así que el impacto de Alice se mantendra sólido/sin desafíar.”Seguramente parece que muchas de las firmas prácticantes no persiguen las patentes de software como solían hacerlo, no en la corte, no en la oficina de patentes. El sistema de patentes mismo, simplemente como el sistema judicial, es muy LENTO Y ONERÓSO. Vean este nuevo artículo que dice: ¨la jueza Indira Talwani enfatizó la importancia de una intervención oportuna en cualquier jucio de infracción de patentes, in una reciénte opinión desde el Distrito de Massachusetts. En este caso un exclusivo concesionario de varias patentes no fue permitido de intervenir en un juicio de patentes, largamente por que su moción fue aplicada muchos meses más tarde.
Cuando los casos de patentes toman años en resolverse (o decididos por una corte), contribuye en gran manera a la incertidumbre, no simplemente por los costos legales, e.g. pago de abogados. Seguramente los abogados y las cortes aman este escenario de gran manera. Es lo que les da seguridad de trabajo.
Circuito Federal
“Cuando los casos de patentes toman años en resolverse (o decididos por una corte), contribuye en gran manera a la incertidumbre, no simplemente por los costos legales, e.g. pago de abogados.”El PTAB (Jurado de Patentes y Apelaciones) ha contribuído al fallecimiento de las patentes de software en los Estados Unidos. La Corte de Apelaciones del Circuito Federal (CAFC), que introdujo las patentes de software en primer lugar, y que a veces interactua con la PTAB, ha sido el objeto de análisis de varias publicaciones de Dennis Crouch. Hoy él escribió que la ¨USPTO Acorrala la Implementación de la Decisión del Distrito Federal¨, notando que ¨de acuerdo a una acción de mandamus, sin embargo el Director de la USPTO ha indicado que ellan no obedecerá a la Corte hasta que todos las apelaciones potenciales se acaben o expiren. Como tal, la USPTO continua rechazando publicar la marca en la Gazeta Oficial.¨
Si, gran ¨justicia¨ aquí.
Otro muy reciénte post de Crouch dice que el Circuito Federal actualmente expresó reluctancia a aceptar patentes en ciertos juegos de computadora. Para citar:
Revisando la aplicación, el Examinador Layno (Games art unit 3711) rechazó esas patentes de juego de cartas como ineligibles bajo la Sección 101 – notando que el reclamo es ¨un atentado para reclamar un nuevo set de reglas para jugar un juego de cartas [y así] califica como una idea abstracta.¨ El Jurado de Juicio de Patentes y Apelaciones afirmó que el dictámen – sosteniéndo que un reclamo independiente es dirigido a un set de reglas para conducir a un juego de apuestas que … constituye una ineligible idea abstracta.¨ Los pasos particulares físicos como barajar y repartir son elementos convencionales de la tarjeta de juegos de azar y por lo tanto (según la Junta) insuficiente para transformar la idea abstracta reivindicado en una patente de invención elegibles.
Es bueno e creciéntemente reasegurador ver que la CAFC, bajo adicional presión de la PTAB, ve la luz en las patentes de software y así las limita.
Patentes Raras
Un montón de aplicaciones por patentes abstractas estan siendo aceptadas como válidas en los Estados Unidos e incluso las más triviales (como que niños fuesen y aplicaren por ellas) terminan siendo aceptadas por la USPTO, donde el control de calidad básicamente fué tirado por la ventana. Temprano ho vimos MIP hablando a aquella gente cuyos negocios son patentar vida/semillas/plantas y luego enjuiciar compañías (o amenazar con enjuiciarlas -mismo Microsoft o Intellectual Ventures). ¨Una nueva patente muestra como los boletos de avión puede depender de tu circunferencia,¨ dice este reciénte titular también y hablando de juegos, aquí esta un artículo que Joe Mullin acerca de una materia que hemos cubierto con anterioridad y mencionada varias veces. ¨Acusado Jordan Gwyther,¨ dice Mullin, ¨ha dicho que la litigación puede amenazar el futuro de su pasatiempo favorito: rol de acción en vivo, o “LARPing.” Gwyter y sus amigos LARPers recrean batallas medievales, usando armadura y armas de tecnopor para escenificar peleas en campos locales y parques.¨
“Crouch simplemente a derribado la cuestión del arte previo, pero cuando examinadores estan con mucho trabajo y compensado por otorgamientos más que rechazos, ¿sorprende a alguien que casi toda aplicación de patentes en los Estados Unidos termina siendo otorgada?”Patentes sobre juegos son realmente demasiado, especialmente cuando envuelven escenarios virtuales de algo que ha existido por siglos (si no milenios). Crouch simplemente a derribado la cuestión del arte previo, pero cuando examinadores estan con mucho trabajo y compensado por otorgamientos más que rechazos, ¿sorprende a alguien que casi toda aplicación de patentes en los Estados Unidos termina siendo otorgada? La EPO está inclinándose a esta tendencia, algo completamente desafortunado.
Patentes de Software
En los Estados Unidos donde Amazon tiene algunas de las más notorias patentes de software (Amazon esta tratando de hacer lo mismo en Europa), Amazon ahora esta buscando monopolios de patentes en autenticación biométrica. Biometrics son passwords que tu básicamente no puedes cambiar, pero Amazon patento la idea sin embargo. Vean los titulares de hoy, como ¨Amazon quiere patentar el pagar por selfie¨, Amazon busca patentar por comprar cosas con una mirada¨, y Amazon Quiere la Patente de Pague por Selfie¨ [1, 2, 3].
“Estos no son “Americanos” pero corporaciones multinationales que estan basados en los Estados Unidos.”Como un artículo lo puso, ¨Amazon ha llenado una aplicación por patentes que permitiría pagar por cosas tomándose un selfie. Para el gigante tecnológico este movimiento mejoraría la seguridad de las personas mientras realizan más y más actividades online.¨
Amazon tambien trabaja de cerca con la CIA (arreglo informático de $600 millones), así que envíar a Amazon muchas fotos personales NO es necesario ni lo más inteligente que uno pudiera hacer.
“Estadounidenses aplican por más patentes en Australia que los propios Australianos!” grita este nuevo titular hoy, ¿pero esta alguién sorprendido? “Estos no son “Americanos” pero corporaciones multinationales que estan basados en los Estados Unidos.” ¿Cuántas de estas patentes son patentes de software? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Protests in Munich covered by the media, including pertinent details about them and the new intervention from the Bavarian Parliament
A lot happened yesterday at the EPO. Aside from reports about the outcome of the Administrative Council's meeting there was Bavarian Parliament intervention. “The party that brought this motion is well-respected,” Florian Müller told me this morning “and, as your article notes, centrist. More center-right than center-left.” Details about the staff protest can be found in German media. An original article in German (reasonably long compared to some) is now behind a paywall, but the English translation is below with highlights:
2000 against one
Munich (DK) in the crisis-ridden European Patent Office (EPO), the President has to deal with the crumbling support of the Member States. At the same time outside, 2000 employees claim his resignation.
Again and again must Ion Brumme interrupt his speech. Again and again, the about 2000 people who gathered in front of the European Patent Office at the Isar in Munich, loudly shout. “Démission! Démission!” it reverberates towards the EPO, one of the most important offices for the European economy, which for months threatens to sink into chaos.
The demand for resignation has been deliberately kept in French. Since the addressee is the French EPO President Benoît Battistelli, who has fallen out with many employees and who is fighting a bitter power struggle with the union SUEPO. Battistelli has become accustomed to office staff gathering in front of his Office to demonstrate against him – that has happened regularly for about one and a half years. Yesterday, however, the demonstration was of particular importance.
Because simultaneously with the protests, which were attended by more than half of the about 4000 EPO staff working in Munich, the patent organisation’s Administrative Council had a meeting inside the building. The meeting had been eagerly expected since inconsistencies between Battistelli and the Administrative Council had become public in advance. The backing for the controversial president in the control panel, in which the 38 member states of the international organization are represented, had evidently shrunk in the recent months. There have even been speculations about a vote of no confidence against Battistelli. Official statements on the results of the Administrative Council meeting, which continues today, are expected only after its end.
For Ion Brumme there is only one solution: “Battistelli can no longer be tolerated!” and “Battistelli! It is time to go!” he calls out to the crowd and reaps cheers and applause. Brumme is one of two leading trade unionists and staff representatives that had recently been thrown out by Battistelli. The reversal of the dismissals and an independent audit of the bullying allegations the sackings were based on, are just one of the demands of the demonstrators. Among other things, they also expect: end the surveillance, internal investigations in line with the principles of the rule-of-law and no nagging of sick employees.
Elizabeth Hardon, the other dismissed unionist, reproaches Battistelli for wanting to split SUEPO. Staff representatives from other EPO sites report that the Administrative Council would increase the pressure on Battistelli. At the same time figures are read, which shall express the displeasure of the staff. According to a staff survey, the proportion of employees with mental health problems has increased within the last three years from two to eleven percent, due to the high working pressure in the office.
Meanwhile, this issue has also reached Bavarian politics. Yesterday, the party ‘Freie Wähler’ [FW] brought an urgent motion with the title “Secure the Bavarian level of worker protection in the whole of Bavaria: remind the European Patent Office of its duty” into the Bavarian parliament. In this motion they complain that in the EPO “there are obviously significant deficiencies” with respect to the labour law status of the employees. Worker protection at Bavarian level should apply to the whole territory of the Free State [of Bavaria], even if the Patent Office is a non-Bavarian institution.
“Bayern must not stand idly by when human rights violations occur in the European Patent Office – based in Munich”, said the spokesperson for social politics of the FW party, Gabi Schmidt . Above all the internal investigations in the EPO, where defendants have no right to remain silent, are an eyesore for the FW.
The Patent Office by the way keeps calm about the demonstrations. That they were permitted and declared as a fundamental right, would show that social dialogue is possible, told us the communication department. The president’s offer to talk to the unions would still be valid, and SUEPO was called to return to the negotiating table. But when simultaneously 2000 employees shout “Démission!” the dialogue can be expected to be difficult.
By Daniel Wenisch
Later today, if and when new information arrives, we shall publish it as soon as possible. We already have some stories on the way, but they are not so urgent or emergent. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.17.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A Bavarian Parliament motion with high urgency zooms in on abuses at the European Patent Office in Munich
Earlier this month, as regular readers surely know, Bavarian television covered the EPO abuses and only hours ago even British media caught up with it and covered it. To quote The Register‘s report:
Although the resolution falls short of what some had hoped for, it does mean that unless Battistelli can show significant improvements in his relationship with staff, he will face more serious consequences at the next administrative council meeting in a few months.
The trust gap between management and staff has been growing in recent weeks, with the staff voting to strike in protest at the management’s tactics. No fewer than 2,000 EPO staff protested outside the front of the EPO building in Munich as the council was deliberating.
And in a damning indictment, a staff survey this week – in which 40 per cent of EPO staff responded – gave Battistelli a zero per cent confidence rating.
[...]
In one heart-wrenching TV report, the brother of a former patent examiner explained that the pressure put on him was a major factor in his subsequent suicide. The report also claimed that EPO employees are scared to talk publicly about their mistreatment in case they are fired.
The investigative Bavarian report made waves which got the EPO's management rather nervous and eager to take action. Well, no wonder…
Emergency motion in the Bavarian parliament was filed later in the same month. To quote a reader of ours: “There was also an emergency motion in the Bavarian parliament tabled by the Freie Wähler party. (“Free electors”), who have 19 members out of 180 in the legislature. The party has centrist positions.
“The motion calls for the government of Bavaria to take measures for enforcing proper employment standards in the EPO.”
This means that it’s likely reactionary — a reaction to the Bavarian TV report.
Here is the whole thing as text (English translation would be greatly appreciated and helpful to all):
Dringlichkeitsantrag
der Abgeordneten Hubert Aiwanger, Florian Streibl, Gabi Schmidt, Prof. (Univ. Lima) Dr. Peter Bauer, Dr. Hans Jürgen Fahn, Günther Felbinger, Thorsten Glauber, Eva Gottstein, Joachim Hanisch, Johann Häusler, Dr. Leopold Herz, Nikolaus Kraus, Peter Meyer, Alexander Muthmann, Prof. Dr. Michael Piazolo, Bernhard Pohl, Dr. Karl Vetter, Jutta Widmann, Benno Zierer und Fraktion (FREIE WÄHLER)
Bayerisches Niveau beim Arbeitnehmerschutz in ganz Bayern sichern: Europäisches Patentamt in die Pflicht nehmen!
Der Landtag wolle beschließen:
I. Der Landtag stellt fest,
1.dass in der Personalpolitik des in München ansässigen Europäischen Patentamts (EPA) offensichtlich erhebliche Defizite bestehen, was die arbeitsrechtliche Stellung der Bediensteten anbetrifft,
2. dass die gegenwärtige Situation der Bediensteten des EPA nicht hinnehmbar ist und Arbeitnehmerschutz auf bayerischem Niveau auf dem gesamten Territorium des Freistaats zur Anwendung kommen muss,
II. Die Staatsregierung wird aufgefordert, sich auf Bundes- und Europaebene einzusetzen, dass auf eine Erhöhung der Arbeitnehmerstandards auf unser bewährtes deutsches und bayerisches Niveau innerhalb des EPA hingearbeitet wird und insbesondere die von dessen Präsidenten erlassenen Richtlinien im Hinblick auf die umstrittenen internen Ermittlungsverfahren schnellstmöglich überarbeitet werden.
Begründung:
Annähernd 2.000 Demonstranten versammelten sich schon während der regelmäßigen Demonstrationen vor dem Europäischen Patentamt (EPA), um gegen die schlechten Arbeitsbedingungen zu demonstrieren. Kostensenkungen und die Bewältigung des jährlichen Anmeldewachstums von Patenten i.H.v. durchschnittlich vier Prozent bei gleichbleibendem Personalbestand führen offensichtlich zu nicht länger hinnehmbaren Gängelungen wie etwa Kontrollen im Krankheitsfall der Mitarbeiter. Der ehemalige Bundesverfassungsrichter Siegfried Broß attestiert „ganz erhebliche Defizite“ in der arbeitsrechtlichen Stellung der Bediensteten. Ein Einklang mit deutschen und bayerischen Arbeitsstandards ist nicht erkennbar. Das EPA ist zwar eine außerstaatliche Institution, so dass deutsches Arbeitsrecht nicht zur Anwendung kommt. Bayern darf als Sitzland aber dennoch nicht tatenlos zusehen, wenn es möglicherweise bereits um menschenrechtswidrige Behandlungen auf dem Territorium des Freistaats geht. Insbesondere ist die Durchführung der umstrittenen Ermittlungsverfahren, die vom Präsidenten des EPA in Richtlinien erlassen wurden, nicht hinnehmbar. Demnach zwingt eine interne Ermittlungseinheit des EPA Mitarbeiter zu Aussagen ohne ein Verweigerungsrecht. Die bisherigen Bemühungen des Bundesjustizministerium, und des Verwaltungsrats des EPA, auf Verbesserungen hinzuwirken, sollen durch aktives Vorgehen der Staatsregierung auf Bundes-und Europaebene flankiert werden.
There will be lots of additional material coming out tomorrow. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The ‘official’ narrative does not tell the full story, as usual…
Summary: Once the thick blanket of PR and hogwash is removed, more optimism for EPO workers is found and more trouble for Battistelli et al becomes apparent
Media Coverage
A LOT is happening at the EPO this week and earlier this night/evening we wrote a quick response to the outcome of the Administrative Council's (AC) meeting. We have not lost track of mainstream media coverage, some of which got listed as follows at SUEPO’s site later in the afternoon. The following list isn’t complete and we hope that SUEPO will produce translations in the coming days (some of the articles below have already been translated for publications at Techrights):
- “Lidstaten Octrooibureau willen rechtvaardige sancties” (NRC, 17 March 2016).
- “2000 gegen einen” (Donaukurier, 16 March 2016).
- “EPA-Konflikt: Schonfrist für Battistelli” (JUVE, 16 March 2016).
- “LABOR DISPUTE – Daggers Drawn at European Patent Office” (Handelsblatt, 16 March 2016).
- “Baas Europees Octrooibureau vertrekt boos bij Van Dam” (NRC, 16 March 2016).
- “Het wordt een pijnlijke bijeenkomst” (NRC, 16 March 2016).
- “Angry EU patent office chief breaks off talks with Dutch minister: NRC” (DutchNews.nl, 16 March 2016).
- “Staatssecretaris voert vruchteloos gesprek met omstreden octrooibaas” (nu.nl, 16 March 2016).
- “L’Epa, c’est moi” (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 15 March 2016).
- “Angst, Mobbing, Entlassungen” (Donaukurier, 15 March 2016).
- “Verwaltungsrat berät über Zwist beim Europäischen Patentamt” (München.tv, 15 March 2016).
- “Querelen beim europäischen Patentamt – Aufstand im Paradies” (Handelsblatt, 15 March 2016).
- “Angst im Europäischen Patentamt: Wer kritisiert, wird entlassen” (blog.compact, 15 March 2016).
- “EPO’s Admin Council meets amid demonstration and strike threats” (Managing Intellectual Property, 14 March 2016).
- “La commission des affaires européennes auditionne le président de l’OEB” (Philip Cordery, 14 March 2016).
- “EPO Union Presses Management To Reverse President’s Disciplinary Actions” (IP-Watch, 14 March 2016).
- “EPO Performance 1 – application pendency times” (IPKAT, 12 March 2016).
It is worth noting that much of the above comes from Dutch and German media, as should probably be expected given the location of the offices. We should add to the above “Battistelli bleibt trotz Protesten im Amt”, which was published earlier today. If anyone can produce a translation or interpretation of new information, that would be appreciated.
“We already know, based on the reaction to a German TV program, that EPO management is very aggressive towards the media.”“Legal notice” has just been added by SUEPO, mirroring what its apparently new site (withdrawn since) contained. The text is exactly the same (see screenshot from February) as it says: “External links are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by SUEPO of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual publishing the linked material. SUEPO bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.”
For those who don’t understand the purpose of this text, consider legal threats against SUEPO (half a year ago). We already know, based on the reaction to a German TV program [1, 2], that EPO management is very aggressive towards the media. It cannot tolerate opposing views and it’s stuck in a bubble of self righteousness.
EPO Saving Face
As we noted earlier today, the hogwash posted in the EPO’s Web site should be taken with a large barrel of salt because the EPO shamelessly lies to journalists nowadays. Here is the full statement with our comments in-line:
Munich, 17 March 2016
147th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (Munich, 16 March 2016)
The Administrative Council held its 147th meeting in Munich on 16 March 2016, with Jesper Kongstad, Director General of the Danish Patent Office, in the chair.
After the Chairman’s activities report, covering in particular the last two meetings of the Board of the Administrative Council, the Council noted the activities report given by the President of the European Patent Office, Benoît Battistelli. The Council was pleased with the excellent results achieved by the Office in terms of production and productivity but expressed concern about the social climate and discussed quality.
Who measured the quality? Did they try independent quality assessment? By some indications, the EPO tortured statistics or even invented the results. As we are going to show later on, some people at the AC were rightly skeptical.
Following an in-depth discussion, the Council approved, in agreement with the President, a resolution on the social situation (see the document below).
The Council re-elected its chairman for a term of three years starting on 1 July 2016. It made two appointments to the Supervisory Board of the Academy and a number of appointments to the Boards of Appeal.
With Kongstad staying for another 3 years it may be hard to discover (or have divulged) Battistelli’s super-secret contract.
The Council noted information provided by the Office on the envisaged structural reform of the EPO Boards of Appeal.
The Council heard reports on the Select Committee 19th meeting (see separate report on this website) as well as on the unitary patent, the latter delivered by the Netherlands delegation representing the country holding the EU presidency in the first half of 2016.
Council Secretariat
The unitary patent is a project that can be hard to implement because of various sources of opposition. But the EPO, as usual, pretends it has no opposition whatsoever, just some “vocal minority” or something along those lines.
Now comes the next (non-introductory) part:
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL ON 16 MARCH 2016
The AC,
in its capacity as supervisory organ of the EPOrg -
having repeatedly expressed its deep concerns about the social unrest within the EPOffice;
having repeatedly urged the EPOffice President and the trade unions to reach a consensus on an MOU which would establish a framework for negotiation between social partners;
noting that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings against staff or trade union representatives have, among other reasons, made it more difficult to reach such a consensus;
noting that these disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are widely being questioned in the public opinion;
recalling the importance and the urgency of the structural reform of the BOA;
recognizing the important institutional role of the AC and its dependence on a well-resourced and independent secretariat;
Calls on both parties to the social dialogue to recognize their responsibilities and to work diligently and in good faith to find a way forward, and:
Requests the EPOffice President -
to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so, and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation
pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken, to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions;
to submit to the AC a draft revision of the Staff Regulations which incorporates investigation guidelines (including the investigation unit) and disciplinary procedures which have been reviewed and amended;
to achieve, within the framework of the tripartite negotiations, an MOU simultaneously with both trade unions, which would have no pre-conditions or exclude any topics from future discussions;
to submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for immediate implementation of the structural reform of the BOA, on the lines of the 5 points agreed by the AC at its December 2015 meeting and of the legal advice given by Prof. Sarooshi, and taking into account comments from the Presidium of the BOA;
to submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for reinforcement of the AC secretariat and a clarification of its position in terms of governance.
Requests the staff representation and the Trade Unions -
to acknowledge the importance of firm and fair disciplinary procedures; and to respond constructively to the initiatives set out above, in particular to work rapidly to an agreement on Union recognition without preconditions.
This is the part which was probably most controversial because it puts a certain burden on SUEPO, it is too gently worded an opposition to Battistelli, and it does nothing whatsoever to actually give the staff representatives their jobs back (pending an external investigation). The AC is trying to save face and AC folks basically try to protect their own job.
Staff’s Response (or Reality Check)
3 sources independently sent us details regarding the latest developments. We don’t really need 3 copies, but it at least helps verify the authenticity of some given material. Here is the message in full:
This beginning of the week was by any standard short but intense.
So much in front: no “big bang”, nor “door slammed”, but clear impulses have been given that will decisive be decisive for the future of the EPO.
1- Biggest Demo so far: the voice of the majority of staff is clear and loud
As reported in the media already, the demo yesterday was the best attended event so far, with over 2000 participants (according to the police). It means that again (I lost count how many), over half of the Staff employed in the EPO (including managers and staff that are requested/sick/on leave…) was physically standing in front of EPO building expressing their discontent with the situation. In the light of such clear fact, it is a puzzle how our leaders can still claim that a “large majority stands behind” their reforms… “Tunnel vision” perhaps? (see pt 3 below)
Contrarily to somewhat depressive past events, it was reported that the mood yesterday was spirited and intense, suggesting that the last events have given Staff a more optimistic outlook on the future of the EPO. In any case Staff expectations are high.
2- Staff survey preliminary results: “Black zero!” and all indicators “in the red”
The 2016 Staff Survey is now been completed. The preliminary results are accessible and brought to the attention of the Delegations of the Administrative Council yesterday. The remarkable response rate of 76% with a global response rate of 39% of all EPO staff ensures that the results are statistically significant.
The results are coherent with the past 2 surveys and correspond unfortunately to the “subjective feel” of staff (see previous point). Even if the situation is well-known to those in the machine-room (and above now), to see such a consistent worsening of the situation in quantified manner is frightening:
– the “job strain” is sliding further down in the “red zone” while “job recognition”, confidence” and “quality” are consistently falling,
– worse: with a quantum leap from 2%, in 2016 11% of staff are experiencing a “psychological distress” (anxiety, depression, cognitive troubles, etc…)
– and while his predecessor still could claim a meager 7% support, today, Mr. Battistelli can claim ZERO % confidence! – the same applies to the MAC…
In good French, “c’est un zero pointé”!
It is hard to apprehend how one can live with the knowledge that at best a handful of individuals (office-wide) have declared their confidence in your leadership. And again, it is even a larger mystery how, in the light of all these facts, one can still pretend that “large majority stands behind” his reforms… “Tunnel vision”
perhaps? (see pt 3 below)
3- “Kurz und schmerzlos”: AC gives also a “Zéro pointé” for past performance and sets new “challenging targets”
The 147th session of the AC was closed after only one short but very intense day. The mandate of the AC Chair, Jesper Kongstad, was renewed for three years. According to the President’s report , it was all congratulations for the impressive results of the EPO and support for his policies…
3.1 the president’s perception is fairly different from that of the other participants.
To paraphrase the NL delegate: “The Office has come out of its “tunnel vision”, also as regards the perception of quality. The Office must work on his bad reputation” (sic!!)
First, the delegations in the AC have been very critical about the Office and in the first place about the social conflict.
But unexpectedly the Delegates also openly questioned the “impressive results for production and quality”, advanced by the EPO.
Here some attempts to paraphrase some delegation:
– NO: “The increase in productivity is impressive, but it’s actually quite unbelievable how this has come. I am confused about the extremely positive surge. Quality is very important.”
– DE: “The social climate must be addressed.”[…]. This part in your [very long] report a bit short […] two to three pages. To put it sarcastically, one could say that there is little progress to report upon. “
– NL: “the recognition of a trade union, which represents only 1% of Staff is somewhat strange… to say the least”
And that was in plenum; The confidential points which took the whole afternoon is reported to have been even more uncomfortable.
3.2 Regarding the disciplinary cases it seems to “requests” (!) the EPOffice President
According to informal information gathered here and there, the AC has taken an unanimous decision (with several abstentions) on a Resolution which was only slightly amended version from the confidential document CA/C 5/16. The latter orients itself closely the B28 document and was signed by 19 delegations (!). We can only presume that a public version of that document will circulate in short. But in the mean-time here is what could be gathered from the somewhat
– to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also “to be seen” (!) to be so, and to consider the “possibility of the involvement” of an external party (reviewer/arbitrator/mediator)… It seems also that in the mean-time running proceedings (in DH) are asked to be suspended
– submit to AC revised SR including investigation guidelines
– achieve a MoU with “both” (!) unions
– submit a proposal for structural reforms of both DG3 and Council Secretariat for June 2016, “after discussion in B28” (!)
– also as an apparent attempt to look balanced, it also requests the “SR to acknowledge the importance of firm and fair disciplinary procedures”, and be “constructive” regarding the initiatives set out above.
for the call for a mediator to solve the general issue, it seems that the President is asked to consider the possibility” of using the service of a competent external party (such as arbitrators/mediators/conciliators).
In other words:
On a first reading this may look disappointing because of the lack of immediate effect regarding our fired and disciplined colleagues. But it could also hint at the following: it looks like the president has just had his “target setting talks” with his boss who has expressed clear measurable SMART goals.
To paraphrase the Swiss delegate, Mr. Grossenbacher: “Am Anfang war er [Präsident] gut. Jetzt ist er ins Stocken gekommen… Ein deutlich vom Verwaltungsrat gesetztes Ziel in dieser Hinsicht wird ganz klar nicht erreicht“. In the new EPO career language that may be a box 7 or 8?
In conclusion the AC and the staff both expect concrete and measurable results before the end of spring. At the coming June session it is probable that the delegates will take stock and…draw consequences.
This is not over yet!: until that happens, Staff will be forced to continue and express their claims clearly.
A lot of people must have seen the above by now. When 3 people send you the same thing within one hour (minutes apart) you know that the EPO has a big problem in its hands; insiders want change very badly and they are not afraid to communicate in a way that denigrates the management or criticises in a derogatory manner some of the top bosses. We are going to get another report tomorrow. It’s about the final outcome. A source told us explicitly that “there should be some details coming out tomorrow.”
“When 3 people send you the same thing within one hour (minutes apart) you know that the EPO has a big problem in its hands; insiders want change very badly and they are not afraid to communicate in a way that denigrates the management or criticises in a derogatory manner some of the top bosses.”As noted earlier today, the strikes are likely to go on since “obviously we are not pleased,” to quote one reader, as “the general expectation is that Battistelli should go [...] the strikes are going to continue.”
This will further demonstrate a state of crisis, as recognised by the Board. To quote one reader, “we´ve tried to see the positive side of it, i.e., maybe in the next meeting he will be removed, since one cannot expect him to agree to anything SUEPO proposes [...] at least now he has to carry out some steps imposed to him [...] if he leaves all the pieces of the domino will fall [...] all the French guys plus the incompetent vice-presidents [...] one can imagine that a lot of people expecting promotions to PD or VP are pissed of at Battistelli´s nepotism.”
While this may be true, Battistelli became an icon or a symbol of EPO abuses. If he stays in, it will only turn out to be a profound image and publicity disaster. The sooner the EPO gets rid of him (and his bunch), the less further damage the EPO as a whole will suffer. He cannot compromise with SUEPO, as he can barely accept/tolerate delegates or politicians who disagree with him. It increasingly looks like an issue of character.
“…one can imagine that a lot of people expecting promotions to PD or VP are pissed of at Battistelli´s nepotism.”
–AnonymousWe previously took note of Grossenbacher’s proximity to Battistelli, but now it sure looks like even Grossenbacher hasn’t positive things to say about Battistelli. When even Grossenbacher is upset at or disappointed with Battistelli it means that there are barely any allies left. We asked around for more information about the quote above (“Am Anfang war er [Präsident] gut. Jetzt ist er ins Stocken gekommen… Ein deutlich vom Verwaltungsrat gesetztes Ziel in dieser Hinsicht wird ganz klar nicht erreicht“).
“My translation,” told us one reader is: “At the beginning he [the President] was good. Now he is faltering. An objective which was clearly set by the Administrative Council was very clearly not reached.” █
“The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they`re okay, then it`s you.”
–Rita Mae Brown
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA