Summary: Things have been heating up since the dismissal of staff representatives at the European Patent Office (EPO) and some even spread rumours about withdrawal/dismissal of the EPO’s President

HAVING already covered the EPO‘s propaganda event a couple of days ago in Rijswijk, we can now move on to some rather interesting news.

Rumours about the withdrawal/dismissal of Battistelli are apparently not correct. He is said to have threatened to resign about a year ago, but he is still inside the EPO. “THE FARCE GOES ON,” told us a source earlier today. “A report on Battistelli´s speech in The Hague on February 4,” the source added, alluding to a longer report that we kindly ask readers to send to us. It´s a report on Battistelli´s speech at The Hague. In part it says: “On February 3 the EPO was abuzz with rumors about the withdrawal/dismissal of B. Battistelli, the president who has been trying hard, and managed more and more successfully, to bring this European institution into disrepute. It would have been too beautiful.”

We are still hoping to get the rest of it. In the mean time, thanks to SUEPO, we now have the following letter, which Union Syndicale Federale (USF) published for everyone to see. It is a self-explanatory letter. SUEPO called it “Letter to J. Kongstad – President of the EPO Council” and added: “In a communiqué, Union Syndicale Federale (USF) reported it is deeply shocked to hear about the latest, disproportionate measures against trade union officials taken at the European Patent Office (EPO) in January 2016. The letter is accessible here.”

We did some OCR, made a local copy of the original letter (just in case), and got the following in HTML form because it merits wider attention (some bits are highlighted, too):

Brussels, 25 January 2016

Mr J. KONGSTA

President of the EPO Council

Dear Mr Kongstad,

Union Syndicale Federale (USF) is deeply shocked to hear about the latest, disproportionate measures against trade union officials taken at the European Patent Office (EPO) in January 2016.

USF, together with numerous external observers and the media, has been following the deteriorating social situation at the EPO, especially since a Dutch Court of Appeal identified breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights at the EPO in its judgement of 17th February 2015.
The EPO has not yet met the requests of the judgement, nor has explained why fundamental rights decided and recognised by all thirty-eight Member States of the European Patent Organisation are inferior to the EPO’s need for autonomy.
The EPO has also not yet explained why it refuses to allow competent national authorities to investigate staff members’ suicides and their causes. In the meantime, the list of incidents of maladministration has grown beyond anyone’s imagination and has seriously stained the reputation of the EPO and the international public service as a whole.

Now, in January 2016, measures unheard of in modern society are being imposed on trade union representatives: one case of serious downgrading and two sackings. It has been reported that internal disciplinary boards recommended far milder sanctions. These recommendations were ignored and arbitrarily replaced by harsher, disproportionate measures.
From information publicly available, it is an obvious conclusion for USF that the charges in the above cases were based on formal confidentiality issues rather than on substance. To misuse a seriously deteriorated social situation so as to orchestrate provocations and construe charges against union representatives is fundamentally conflicting with the duty of care of an international organisation.

---

Union Syndicate Service Public Europeen — Bruxelles (BE) • Union Syndicale Recherche — Ispra (IT) • Union Syndicale Recherche —Karlsruhe (DE) Union Syndicale Recherche — Petten (NL) ■ European Public Service Union Fusion — Bruxelles (BE) ■ Union Syndicale Office Europeen des Brevets — Berlin (DE) et Den Haag (NL) • Syndicat des Agents du Conseil de (‘Europe — Strasbourg (FR) ■ Union Syndicale Eurocontrol France – Bretigny (FR) • Union Syndicale Ecole Europeenne — Bergen (NL) ■ Union Syndicate Centre Europeen pour le Developpement de la Formation Professionnelle — Thessaloniki (EL) ■ Union Syndicale European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions— Dublin (1E) • Union Syndicale European Training Foundation — Turin (IT) ■ Union Syndicate de l’Institut Universitaire de Firenze (IT) • Union Syndicale Centre de Developpement de I’Entreprise — Bruxelles (BE) ■ Union Syndicale European Agency for Safety & Health at Work — Bilbao (ES) • International and Public Services Organisation — Frankfurt (DE) — Union Syndicate Federale – section Luxembourg (LU) — European Public Service Union — Cour de Justice — Luxembourg (LU) Gewerkschaft des Deutsch-Franzosischen Jugendwerks — Paris (FR) et Berlin (DE).

---

USF urgently calls upon all EPO organs to annul the decisions taken against trade union representatives.

UDF calls upon all EPO organs to return to the rule of law and sound practice as commonly understood in the 21st century and to take all necessary corrective steps at their next internal meetings in order to avoid further irreparable damage to the Office’s reputation, as well as to the social climate at the EPO.

Yours sincerely,

Bernd LOESCHER
President

Addressees:

EPO Administrative Council
Cc: EPO President, Mr. B. Battistelli
Cc: SUEPO Munich, Ms E. Hardon, Mr I. Brumme, Ms M. Weaver

SUEPO added a link to the USF letter to Guy Ryder, Director General of ILO, where many complaints about the EPO have been piling up for years. The letter does not refer directly to the EPO, but SUEPO chose to highlight it by writing: “In a communiqué, Union Syndicale Federale (USF) submits a claim to the Director General of ILO aiming at a specific aspect of the functioning of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. The corresponding letter is accessible here.”

We kindly ask readers to consider sending us the aforementioned report. We have never (in a decade) compromised the identity of a source and we want this report for future record/reference. █

“The mask fell”: When millions wasted on PR and busting of unions (or inside sources, as was the case in Volkswagen) just isn’t enough to keep enforcers away

Blatterstelli — as Florian Müller calls him — was already compared to famous criminals on television

Summary: Rumours and a new rant from Battistelli reinforce suspicions that actions are being organised behind the scenes, possibly as part of an upcoming, high-level campaign to unseat/dethrone Battistelli, who has become a reputational disaster to the European Patent Office (EPO), much like Sepp Blatter at FIFA

LAST week we learned about Battistelli’s propaganda event in Rijswijk, whereupon we asked for more details, taken down and composed by those who attended. They obviously did this anonymously, for their own protection.

One anonymous Twitter user wrote about an hour ago: “I hear the administrative council are asking advice from senior judges. Conference at the end of February I think.”

“One can be left wondering whether they want to get rid of the judge who allegedly exposed Team Battistelli, i.e. the alleged whistleblower, or get rid of Battistelli himself (along with others inside his circle, Željko Topić for example).”Judges do not support Battistelli (in fact, board judges defended the suspended judge even under immense pressure) because Battistelli has already broken basic rules in order to ban judges and his own idea of trials is as laughable as it can be. Even when there’s a ruling (after a truly faulty process, without separation of powers) he ignored the ruling and issued his own. Any judge with a clue (or even a law student) would treat Battistelli as the very antithesis of justice. It’s like something straight out of a famous novel or a satirical play. Since there’s no staging or acting here and real people are unjustly being hurt (there are even nervous breakdowns), this is quickly becoming the shame of Europe.

The above hearsay it curious. One can be left wondering whether they want to get rid of the judge who allegedly exposed Team Battistelli, i.e. the alleged whistleblower, or get rid of Battistelli himself (along with others inside his circle, Željko Topić for example). The EPO is in a state of crisis not because staff (such as examiners) is naughty but because the management clearly does not know how to manage. It follows the model or the example demonstrated by Željko Topić in Croatia. It’s something one might expect from the Kremlin, not from the European Union.

“It’s something one might expect from the Kremlin, not from the European Union.”“I´m trying to send that speech report,” wrote a source to us, who had attempted to securely pass to us some information about the self-aggrandising event set up by Team Battistelli, mirroring the likes of FIFA (before the scandals and dismissals).

“THE FARCE GOES ON” is the title of the report. It is an informal “report on Battistelli´s speech in The Hague on February 4,” to quote the outline. Here is some of the information contained therein (with altered formatting and minor omissions). We highlight one particular bit because of its relevance to us:

On February 3 the EPO was abuzz with rumors about the withdrawal/dismissal of B. Battistelli, the president who has been trying hard, and managed more and more successfully, to bring this European institution into disrepute. It would have been too beautiful. The spineless Administrative Council´s reaction has so far been, in the most fortunate cases, to avoid taking blatantly illegal steps but no firm reaction to his tyrannical decisions. Battistelli´s response to the AC´s first weak sign of dissent, the recommendation that BB start a dialogue with the staff representation, resulted in the dismissal of two members and the demotion of a third, which amounts to a spit in the faces of the European delegates. The European press, in its most part preoccupied with more pressing matters and unlikely to shatter the establishment, had slowly started to report on BB´s attack on the examiners´ elected representatives so BB, like any dictator under the siege of external forces, thought a speech would be a great idea in order to bolster his rule [...] Assad does it, Mugabe still does it, Honecker and Ceausescu did it, so sometimes, but fortunately only sometimes, it works.

Fuelled by the EUR 800,000 injection into PR a presidential show was organized in The Hague in the old Soviet Union style on February 4. People were hoarded and screened, told to behave, and at 10 o´clock the show began. Uplifting music accompanied the images of the EPO and after a short introduction by a continuously smiling moderator with French-accented English which mistook the event for the Eurovision contest the president took the pulpit. Pages of positive statistics started rolling on the huge background screen while the president informed the audience that never had the EPO been more successful. Budget, social situation, unitary patent were all mentioned. In particular the low fees achieved by the negotiating skills of the president against the will of several delegations were mentioned (one can ask why were´t the patent fees lowered but raised when the EPO enjoyed such a great year, but that would spoil the festive atmosphere). A small concession was surprisingly offered, a year of review and assessment – “digéstion”, in the words of BB, which means that the process of reducing the EPO pensions will only start next year. Presented were also the “orientations for the future”: financial perspectives, social review, occupational and safety assessment, review of investigation guidelines (whatever this may mean) and … renewed social dialogue [...] The Q&A time was started by a brave but very discoursive examiner whose question, very polite but sufficiently clear in describing the bad atmosphere in the office and the distance between the management and the staff, related to the main present concern, the silencing of the staff. [...] “I´m a strong believer in social dialogue. My INPI colleagues will testify to this.” was Battistelli´s reply, engaging thereafter in a tirade against SUEPO which were supposed to have slighted him during the homeworking negotiations several years before. And then, suddenly, the mask fell. This man who manages to keep his composure most of the time, lost it. “It is not ILOAT that manages the office. It is childish, childish to write to judges in Geneva.”, he retorted, raising his voice menacingly. For a moment we caught a glimpse of the real face of Battistelli, a man who takes any different opinion than his personally and is ready to destroy the lives of those who oppose him. In a now (in)famous interview he described SUEPO as “mafia” after which he started to eliminate his perceived enemies one by one (two fired and one downgraded). Then the screen presented a page entitled “Disciplinary cases” which started with the bullet point “Contrary to allegations, the EPO unequivocally supports freedom of expression and freedom of association. [...] continuing with the following bullet points:

- Disciplinary cases are not launched because of criticisms expressed against the office.

- Sanctions are applied following major breaches of our staff rules and regulations.

The cases involved:

- Active participation in a damaging defamation campaign against the Organisation, the EPO management and individual staff members (One can only ask oneself if the description of the SUEPO by Battistelli as “mafia” does not fall under [...] Direct threats and coercion expressed against staff members and staff representatives; Undue financial and moral pressure against EPO employees Pressure brought against witnesses during investigations and repetitive disclosures of confidential matter.

Then, in red color: “The office has a duty of care to protect all staff members.” After the sanctions in Munich and the pending suspensions in The Hague sentences referring to “supporting freedom of expression” have an Orwellian doublespeak ring to them. Then, among soft questions like the proposal of a name to the new building in The Hague, Battistelli explained the role of financial incentives in the examiners´ careers. Here he would have a point if the examiners received instead of between 1,500 and 2,000 EUR yearly bonus (representing an average of 2% of their yearly salaries) a bonus in the same order of magnitude as the president or the vice-president – seven- and six-figure sums are rumored but cannot be confirmed because Battistelli enjoys, very conveniently but totally against the principle of openness in a European organization, a secret contract).

He then embarked upon discussing parts of the health reform and argued that all has been done for the good of the people. “Il faut degonfler les rumeurs. There is no control at home! Ridiculous! The cutting of the lump sum for invalidity would only facilitate the return to work. All the decisions are medical. I´m pragmatic, ready to change …”

Battistelli then reiterated that there will be no major reform this year but after 2016 there will be discussions with the staff representation and the delegations (who “actually wish the pension reform” – with the tacit understanding that Battistelli will defend the staff rights in front of an aggressive AC!).

Questions about patent administration, classification and educational allowance for non-German or -Dutch staff were addressed and answered vaguely, with a bullet point interspersed:

“Quality is our main priority. We are in competition with other offices. We may be the best but we are the most expensive one.”

On the question regarding the fluctuating number of applications Battistelli gave this opinion conveyed also by VP Minnoye in his directors´ meetings, that “Backlog is a mistake. It is not a safety cushion. It is a big mistake. Backlogs are not a strength. It´s a weakness. We´re going to receive more and more applications.” It seems there are few people outside BB and his VP who are convinced of this …

Finally, likening himself with général de Gaulle (?) Battistelli clarified the matter of his bodyguards. “Europe is not the same as before the Paris attacks. I am French, president of a big European organization. After the Paris attacks both the French and the German police recommended that I should take measures.”

The finale was less glorifying than the beginning but all in all it was a pretty good performance. Battistelli showed himself less motivating than Fidel, less pugnacious than Kim Il Sung, but definitely more engaging than Honecker or Zhivkov.

Any dictator relies on a three-pillared system involving propaganda, fear and the loyalty of the repressive state apparatus. Battistelli is assured of the loyalty of his minions, there´s a certain degree of fear among the staff but his propaganda doesn´t fool anybody at the EPO.

The Administrative Council must finally act and replace Battistelli with somebody it can trust! At present the EPO is run by a loose cannon.

The analogy above is priceless. The President of the Banana Republic known as OPOnia not only brags about working with Colombia (in his 'blog') but also fast-tracking patent examination with Colombia (warning: epo.org link). This was posted as ‘news’ the other day, after the PR team produced the latest propaganda which no doubt it will force-feed the press with (as it always does). Perhaps the human rights of Colombia (and patent standards) are something that Battistelli can still feel comfortable with.

It is evident from the above report that Battistelli is growing rather worried about judges, who are not only more qualified than him but can also finish his career. We shall leave the report above in tact, both for future reference and for readers’ information. There are many interesting bits in this report. █

Summary: Words heard through the grapevine of the European Patent Office (EPO), where staff is overwhelmingly against the managers and some people, including high-profile staff, add to the exodus

TECHRIGHTS has repeatedly advised readers to contact their national delegates regarding EPO abuses. We also suggest speaking to European politicians, “but the question is whether the Ministers are going to do anything about it,” one reader of ours said. Well, some of them are increasingly vocal on these matters (we gave an example earlier today) and there are also interventions behind the scenes (which we are aware of).

“Minnoye, who´s regarded as a totally incompetent VP, is hated by the directors, too…”
      –AnonymousThis site’s involvement in these matters began a long time ago, but mostly focused on software patents in Europe. Half a decade ago I wrote to EBoA on the subject. Software patents are part of a broader issue which we often call patent maximalism. This includes GMO/seed monopolies (e.g. patents on plants), artificially high pricing on life-saving medicine (where research is often funded by taxpayers anyway) and other such issues that brought a lot of EPO critics to this kind of campaigning in the first place.

Abuses by the EPO against applicants and against EPO staff is something we only became better aware of in recent years. Staff unions too have been critical of patent maximalism; maybe that’s why (amongst other reasons) the patent maximalists cannot tolerate them and Battistelli is trying to crush them. “I cannot believe he´s going to finish his term,” one reader told us about him. This reader works for Battistelli. We learned that “the rumour about his leaving was spread even by one of the directors [...] if Battistelli falls, the whole bunch will fall [...] Minnoye, who´s regarded as a totally incompetent VP, is hated by the directors, too [...] If you could read the Gazette you would see how many people are voting with their feet [...] a lot of staff retire before time and it´s not only examiners but also directors and a PD (principal director) [...] even the Brussels man has retired although he was relatively young” (we've mentioned the opening here).

“I can´t believe they employed somebody like Topic, with his skeletons in the cupboard…”
      –AnonymousThis reader added that “we started employing people with Afghanistan experience now [...] there was also a UK guy with Afghanistan experience [...] in his CV he wrote he spoke: Serbien, Croatian and Bosnian [...] which is rubbish [as] there is no Bosnian language [...] I can´t believe they employed somebody like Topic, with his skeletons in the cupboard [...] they´ll go down all together [as Battistelli] cannot survive years of negative publicity [...] there are too many rumours about him [...] that he will prolong here, that he will move to Paris as president of the UPC [...] the first thing the press should write is about the secret contract [as] it appears that the AC is signing the budget without knowing his bonus and only Kongstad [Chairman] knows about it [...] he should be forced to publish his bonus (allegedly over 1 million – 1.4, 1.5) [...] it´s enough for the newspapers to continue writing each time that his contract is secret.”

So much for ‘public’ body… neither public nor European. █

Summary: The latest word from inside and outside the EPO, serving to reinforce rumours that a post-Battistelli era isn’t a distant dream anymore

THE media is saying nothing about the EPO (except puff pieces repeating an EPO press release/propaganda regarding Rospatent) and people keep asking us what’s going on.

Here is a concise summary of what’s known and what’s speculated.

“Board 28 is preparing (or has prepared) a doc,” said an earlier comment, “to be discussed at the AC in March which is putting BB against the wall. Directors in DG1 are already informing some selected staff that the situation is very difficult for BB and that the confrontation with the AC will be so harsh to convince him that he has to go. [...] Let’s keep the finger cross and keep the EPO under pressure. Many of the explicit and implicit supporters of BB will try to recycle themselves like some Nazis did after Hitler’s fall. Beware of the hypocrites!”

We also have the following document which is in German (English/French/Spanish translations would be more than welcome). This document was addressed to the Praesidium of the AC. It says:

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

An das Präsidium
des Verwaltungsrats
der Europäischen Patenorganisation

OPEN LETTER

Sozialstudie 2016 – Position des Zentralen Personalausschusses

Sehr geehrte Präsidiumsmitglieder,

Sie hatten die Vorbereitung und den aktuellen Stand der Sozialstudie 2016 auf der Tagesordnung Ihrer 69. bzw. 70. Sitzung. Auch für heute steht die Sozialstudie wieder auf Ihrer Agenda. Wir bedauern es, dass die Amtsleitung die vom 16. bis 18. Februar 2016 geplante Sitzung des ZPA nicht genehmigt hat, so dass wir – entgegen unserer Absicht – nicht persönlich mit Ihnen in Kontakt treten können. Daher erlauben wir uns, Sie schriftlich darüber zu unterrichten, dass der ZPA aufgrund aktueller Anlässe seine Haltung gegenüber der anvisierten Studie ändern musste. In der Sitzung des Allgemeinen Beratenden Ausschusses am 9. Dezember 2015 zeigten sich die anwesenden Mitglieder des ZPA in ihren Bemerkungen zum dort kurzfristig auf die Agenda genommenen Dokument zur Sozialstudie 2016 noch vorsichtig optimistisch. Insbesondere die Federführung durch den Verwaltungsrat und die Bereitschaft, Bemerkungen und Vorschläge des ZPA aufzugreifen, erschienen uns als unterstützenswerter Ansatz, sich von den einseitigen Darstellungen des Amtspräsidenten zur sozialen Situation im EPA lösen zu wollen. In der vergangenen Tagung des Verwaltungsrats unterstrichen wir in unseren Ausführungen noch einmal, dass ein besonderes Augenmerk auf die Unabhängigkeit des externen Auftragnehmers, auf die Gewährleistung der absoluten Anonymität der teilnehmenden Bediensteten und auf die Einschätzung des Personals zur Auswirkung der aktuellen Arbeitsatmosphäre auf die Qualität der geleisteten Arbeit gelegt werden muss.
Am 7. Januar 2016 wurde uns mitgeteilt, dass der Präsident entschieden hatte, den ZPA einzuladen, einen Beobachter zum Vergabeausschuss zu nominieren. Dieser Einladung kamen wir innerhalb der kurzen gegebenen Frist am 15. Januar 2016 nach. Am 21. Januar 2016 übermittelten wir

---

dem Verwaltungsrat und dem Amtspräsidenten weitere Anmerkungen und Vorschläge zur Sozialstudie 2016 in Schriftform. Trotzdem behauptete der Amtspräsident am 4. Februar 2016 in seiner Veranstaltung „Meet the President“ vor der Amtsöffentlichkeit, der ZPA habe trotz Einladung niemals Kommentare zur geplanten Sozialstudie abgegeben.
Unser Beobachter wurde leider nie zu einer Sitzung eingeladen oder anderweitig an der Vorbereitung der Studie beteiligt, sondern erhielt erstmalig am Nachmittag des 11. Februar 2016 Unterlagen zur Ausschreibung, die für den 12. Februar 2016 terminiert war. Diese Unterlagen umfassten mehrere Dokumente mit einem Umfang von über 100 Seiten, für die nicht einmal klargestellt war, inwiefern sie an den ZPA weitergegeben werden durften.
Wir betrachten diese Art der Konsultation als mangelhaft und nicht als bona fide. Vielmehr fürchten wir, dass versucht werden könnte, die Teilnahme eines ZPA-Beobachters im Vergabeausschuss später als Argument für eine angebliche Unabhängigkeit der Sozialstudie 2016 anzuführen. Daher stellen wir an dieser Stelle deutlich klar, dass der ZPA seine anfängliche Unterstützung für die Durchführung der Studie vorerst zurückzieht. Uns erstaunt im Übrigen, dass offenbar niemand mehr aus dem Verwaltungsrat – nicht einmal aus seinem Präsidium – an der Vorbereitung, Ausschreibung und Durchführung der Sozialstudie 2016 beteiligt ist, zumal Artikel 32 EPÜ doch entsprechende Möglichkeiten für den Verwaltungsrat vorsieht.
Da also demnach die Federführung aufgegeben wurde und auch keine Vorschläge des ZPA aufgegriffen wurden, sind unsere wesentlichen Gründe für eine Unterstützung der Studie nunmehr hinfällig. Wir können daher den Bediensteten des Europäischen Patentamts eine Teilnahme an eventuellen Interviews und Umfragen im Rahmen der Sozialstudie 2016 derzeit nicht empfehlen. Uns bleibt lediglich, dem Amtspräsidenten für die Unabhängigkeit und Glaubwürdigkeit seiner Sozialstudie 2016 viel Glück zu wünschen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Der Zentrale Personalausschuss

Wir bestätigen, dass das obige Schreiben ordnungsgemäß vom
Zentralen Personalausschuss beschlossen wurde.

cc.:
Mr B. Battistelli, President of the EPO
Mr Y. Grandjean, Director Council Secretariat

It sure looks like the Battistelli era is almost finished. “I am hearing rumours that he has gone,” one person told us a short while ago, but “it’s unconfirmed however,” said another person, “something seriously is going on right now! PANIC ON THE TITANIC and that is NO rumor” (we heard it from quite a few separate sources).

“Hold your breath,” this person added, “here is another rumour! Apparently a big IP event scheduled for next week got canceled!”

It’s apparently not the propaganda event in which FTI Consulting is involved but “the IP5 event!”

“IP5 heads of the big 5 patent offices,” clarified this person in response to a question (more here and here). “Let’s call it the begin[ning] of the end of an awful era,” it was later added, “however remember that more rotten heads need to be removed!” █

Summary: Some of the latest rumours about the fate of Mr. Battistelli and a blast from the past involving Mr. Minnoye, who has helped defend Battistelli even in the face of court rulings against him (in The Hague)

Rumours are swirling regarding the EPO‘s President, Mr. Battistelli, as we last noted last night. Some rumours suggest that it all boils down to money, at least for Battistelli. “Further rumours,” said this one comment from last night is that “[i]n order to go, BB wants 18 millions €. Furthermore, Mrs Bergot should be allowed to remain in a high position. If true, it would be a shame. Someone who has destroyed the proper functioning of a model organisation and made a mess of the social climate should go with a kick in the lower back, not with money taken from the fees paid by the users. No negotiations, please! He and the crooks who supported him all along should simply go.”

“Someone who has destroyed the proper functioning of a model organisation and made a mess of the social climate should go with a kick in the lower back, not with money taken from the fees paid by the users.”
      –AnonymousAround 700 people from the EPO went to protest, told us another person about Wednesday’s protest in Munich (against their employer, notably Battistelli). Information which Techrights received, moreover, serves to confirm there’s a major confrontation between Battistelli and the Administrative Council. The exact nature of it is still unknown.

The “news from the EPO,” as one person put it in a message to us, involves Guillaume Minnoye as well. “This is what I heard about the demo in Munich,” said the source. “With close to 700 persons, the demo went well (although there were less people than at the previous demos). SUEPO invited the Board 28 to talk to the protesters, but they didn’t.

“Guillaume Minnoye (EPO VP1) said during a meeting today that there is a proposal to be voted on in the Administrative Council’s (AC) March meeting. The proposal is apparently not from the EPO president. He expects a confrontation between the president and the AC.”

In the mean time, given a little more time to breathe, we decided to retrieve this ILO judgment (we’ve made a local copy of the official English translation, as PDF, just in case) which shows Minnoye, the head of Internal Services at the time (according to a source of ours), attacking SUEPO even two decades ago. In the following text we highlight the role played by Minnoye at the time:

Registry’s translation, the French
text alone being authoritative.

EIGHTY-FIRST SESSION

In re BAILLET,

CERVANTES and COOK (No. 3)

Judgment 1547

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

Considering the complaint filed by Mr. Bernard Jean Raymond Baillet against the European Patent Organisation (EPO) on 6 January 1995, the EPO’s reply of 27 March, the complainant’s rejoinder of 2 May and the Organisation’s surrejoinder of 6 June 1995;

Considering the complaint filed by Mr. Jean-Pierre Cervantes against the EPO on 6 January 1995, the Organisation’s reply of 27 March, the complainant’s rejoinder of 29 June and the EPO’s surrejoinder of 3 August 1995;

Considering the third complaint against the Organisation filed by Mr. Steven Derek Cook on 6 January 1995, the EPO’s reply of 27 March, the complainant’s rejoinder of 28 June and the Organisation’s surrejoinder of 2 August 1995;

Considering Articles II, paragraph 5, and VII of the Statute of the Tribunal;

Having examined the written submissions and disallowed the application by Mr. Cervantes for hearings;

Considering that the facts of the case and the pleadings may be summed up as follows:

A.The EPO employs the complainants as patent examiners at grade A3 in its Directorate-General 1 (DG1) at The Hague. Mr. Cervantes is chairman of the local section of the Staff Union (SUEPO) of the European Patent Office, which is the EPO’s secretariat. On 15 October 1992 the union used the Office’s internal messenger service to send each of its members at The Hague an invitation to attend a general meeting on EPO premises on 20 October at 11 a.m. Not all the invitations were delivered: Mr. Baillet and Mr. Cook did not get them.

In a note dated 19 October 1992 the head of Internal Services told Mr. Cervantes that the Office would not be helping to distribute the invitations because union meetings were not allowed in the “core” period of the working day, between 10 and 11.30 a.m.

By a letter of 14 January 1993 Mr. Cervantes asked the President of the Office to declare the note “invalid” and to make sure that mail was properly delivered in future. By letters of 15 January Mr. Baillet, Mr. Cook and other members of the union asked the President to declare “unjustified” what they described as the “censoring” of their private mail, to promise that the Administration would not intercept it again and, if he refused, to treat their letters as internal appeals.

The President upheld the decision and the case went to the Appeals Committee. In a report dated 4 July 1994 the Committee recommended rejection. By letters of 11 October 1994 the Director of Staff Policy informed the complainants that the President had endorsed the Committee’s recommendation. Those are the decisions they are impugning.

B.The complainants plead breach of Article 30 of the Service Regulations, which reads:

“Permanent employees shall enjoy freedom of association; they may in particular be members of trade unions or staff associations of European civil servants.”

Mr. Baillet says that by intercepting private mail from the staff union the Administration was guilty of censorship and acted ultra vires. Mr. Cervantes argues from precedent that to allow only “approved” communication betweenunion members is to deny freedom of association. What the EPO did hampered freedom of speech and betrayed the Administration’s resolve to cripple the union.

The complainants see the EPO’s behaviour as a departure from usage. Mr. Cook observes that the Office had always allowed staff associations and social clubs unrestricted use of the messenger service. The complainants plead discrimination on the grounds that others had their invitations delivered.

Questioning the impartiality of one member of the Appeals Committee, they charge the Organisation with breach of Article 111 of the Service Regulations.

They want the Tribunal to set aside the President’s decisions of 11 October 1994.

Mr. Baillet invites it to condemn “censorship” at the EPO and award him 5,000 German marks in moral damages and another 5,000 marks in damages for the “mishandling” of his case by the Appeals Committee.

Mr. Cervantes asks that it order the President to “stop censoring union mail” and award him 10,000 marks on that account, one mark for the flaw in the Committee’s proceedings and 10,000 marks in costs. As president of SUEPO he seeks a further 85,600 marks in damages for moral injury to the union.

Mr. Cook seeks an award of at least 20,000 guilders in moral damages, including 10,000 for breach of Article 111. He claims at least 3,000 guilders in costs.

C.In its replies the EPO argues that the complaints are irreceivable because the complainants suffered no injury: its action made no “real” impact on union business or on freedom of association.

In subsidiary argument on the merits the Organisation says it is under no duty to distribute private mail, let alone unsealed messages that are against the rules. In any event it did not bar timely announcement of the meeting on the union’s notice board or holding the meeting as scheduled.

The EPO denies breach of Article 111: had the impartiality of any member of the Committee been in doubt the staff representatives might have objected. In fact the Committee’s recommendation was unanimous.

Mr. Cervantes’ tirade against the Administration’s treatment of the union is “mistaken” and “uncalled-for”. Besides, he has no locus standi to claim damages on the union’s behalf.

D.In their rejoinders the complainants challenge allegations of fact in the replies and press their claims. Again they express doubts about the impartiality of one member of the Appeals Committee.

Citing Judgment 1269 (in re Errani), Mr. Cervantes submits that as the union’s “representative” he may seek damages on its behalf.

Mr. Cook gives examples of staff meetings held in the core period with support from the EPO.

E.In its surrejoinders the EPO enlarges on its pleas and comments on issues raised in the rejoinders. It maintains that the letters were unlawful insofar as they contained invitations to a union meeting to be held in working hours. It is the Appeals Committee, not the Administration, that decides under Article 111 whether to exclude a member whose impartiality is in doubt.

In the surrejoinder on Mr. Cook’s case the EPO maintains that it may allow a meeting even in working hours if the organisers have applied for and got permission: SUEPO did not.

CONSIDERATIONS:

The facts

1.The three complaints are about the right of members of the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) to have union notices delivered.

2.On 15 October 1992 Mr. Cervantes, as chairman of SUEPO, sent out invitations to all members to attend a general meeting on 20 October 1992 at 11 a.m. in a room on EPO premises at The Hague. The messenger service

delivered the invitations in the main building but not elsewhere. Mr. Baillet and Mr. Cook did not get them. By a letter of 19 October 1992 the head of Internal Services, who was in charge of the distribution of mail, told Mr. Cervantes that the Office would not be delivering the invitations. On 14 and 15 January 1993 the complainants sent letters of protest to the President of the Office. Letters of 19 January 1993 told them that the President was upholding the decision, and letters of 4 and 5 March that he was putting the cases to the Appeals Committee.

On 4 July 1994 the Committee recommended rejection. The President rejected the appeals by decisions of 11 October 1994, the ones now under challenge.

Joinder

3.The Organisation applies for joinder. Since the complaints raise the same issues of fact and of law the application is allowed.

Receivability

4.The EPO objects that the complaints disclose no cause of action and are therefore irreceivable.

5.It observes that Mr. Cervantes, who purports to be acting for the union, may not claim damages on its behalf; he may act only in his own name; and his interest in obtaining a promise of delivery of union mail is academic.

6.The purpose of Mr. Cervantes in bringing his complaint is to obtain the quashing of the President’s decision of 11 October 1994 to reject his appeal of 14 January 1993. One plea in support of his internal appeal was that by refusing to deliver the “individual and private invitations” he had sent out the EPO was in breach of his rights as its employee. And the claims he puts to the Tribunal are plain enough: he wants it to declare the Organisation out of order and reaffirm his freedom of speech, particularly on matters of union business. He also believes that intercepting messages from the union was a breach of the freedom of association that Article 30 of the Service Regulations guarantees for everyone in the EPO’s employ. The conclusion is that it is wrong to say he is acting for the union: he has brought his complaint in his own name; and he has a direct and rightful interest in the observance of freedom of association that Article 30 requires.

7.The EPO’s general objection to receivability is that the complainants show no cause of action. It is saying that it has committed no breach in fact or in law of their freedom of association or right to carry on union business. In its submission the union has no right to its help in delivering union messages; the complainants, as members of the union, have no greater rights than the union itself and no right to the delivery of private mail by the Organisation; and they have suffered no discernible injury since what the EPO did had no real effect on union business or on freedom of association.

8.Precedent has it that an organisation has some latitude in affording facilities to a staff union and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. That is not so, however, where it is charged with breach of freedom of association. The Tribunal will indeed interfere if the effect of the impugned decision is to hamper the freedom of speech that any union must enjoy. Refusal to deliver invitations to a union meeting is unquestionably a breach of the privacy of mail and of the freedom of speech that is part and parcel of freedom of association. The EPO’s pleas that the union had no right to delivery and that no injury was caused go rather to merits than to receivability. The conclusion is that because the complainants seek a ruling on the lawfulness of refusal to deliver union mail and because such refusal is actionable the objection to receivability must fail.

The membership of the Appeals Committee

9.A preliminary issue is the complainants’ objections to one member of the Appeals Committee. They cite Article 111 of the Service Regulations: the impartiality of any member may be challenged whenever he is “required to take part in a case in which he might have a personal interest or in respect of which he participated in preparing the decision under appeal …”. They contend that Mr. G. Schwabe should not have sat on the Committee because he was in charge of the distribution unit; the President’s decision was one of direct concern to that unit and while the case was pending Mr. Schwabe was asked to draft rules on the use of the messenger service.

10.The plea fails. It is plain from the text that the guidelines that Mr. Schwabe drew up on the handling of mail are general in purport: they are not about the particular case of union mail, and they say that at each duty station mail may be processed to suit local circumstances. Besides, the Committee reported on 4 July 1994, whereas the guidelines did not go out until 29 August 1994, and it is by no means sure that they were written by the earlier date.

The Committee’s members – including the staff representatives – were of one mind in rejecting the charges of partiality against Mr. Schwabe.

The merits

11.The gist of the complainants’ case in support of their claims to the quashing of the impugned decisions is breach of Article 30 of the Service Regulations, which is quoted in B above. They see the interception of the invitations as bare censorship and part of a policy of the EPO’s to curb the union. The Organisation’s answer is that the mail was neither “personal” nor even “individual and private invitations” but “unsealed announcements of a meeting”, the same for everyone and no mystery. Besides, having concluded no agreement with the Organisation for the purpose the union has no right to have it deliver a summons to such a meeting.

12.The notices were not private mail but invitations sent to each of the complainants by name to attend a general meeting. To be sure, the EPO had no formal agreement with the union about facilities such as the distribution of a summons to a meeting. But it admitted to the Appeals Committee that its consistent practice since 1992 had been to distribute any unsealed unofficial internal mail, whether private or not, save any text containing a personal attack on someone. Was such usage binding in law? As Judgment 421 (in re Haghgou) said, for example, a usage will be binding if staff have come to rely on it.

13.The plain expectation of the staff was that the EPO would deliver notices from their union without let or hindrance. The Organisation does not deny the practice, but just pleads limits to it: the union’s invitations offended against the rule that a general meeting must be held outside core working hours.

14.Yet the EPO did not treat the offence – the holding of the meeting as scheduled – as serious enough to constitute an abuse: in the event it authorised the meeting at the time announced and imposed on those who attended neither any penalty nor even the obligation to make up the time spent off work. Besides, by thwarting the delivery of union notices to staff outside the main building the EPO denied some, and not others, the freedom of association they were guaranteed by Article 30. It thereby discriminated against them. The conclusion is that the complaints must succeed.

15.The claim by Mr. Cervantes to an award of damages to the union is irreceivable because his complaint is in his own name. And though the individual claims by the three complainants are formally sound, the amounts they claim cannot be awarded: the meeting did take place and there is no evidence of any particular injury. Each is awarded 500 German marks in damages for moral injury.

16.Having won their case, they are entitled to costs, and the Tribunal awards them 500 marks each. Their other claims are dismissed.

DECISION:

For the above reasons,

1.The President’s decision of 11 October 1994 is set aside.

2.The EPO shall pay each complainant 500 German marks in moral damages.

3.It shall pay each complainant a further 500 marks in costs.

4.Their other claims are dismissed.

In witness of this judgment Sir William Douglas, President of the Tribunal, Mr. Edilbert Razafindralambo, Judge, and Mr. Jean-François Egli, Judge, sign below, as do I, Allan Gardner, Registrar. Delivered in public in Geneva on 11 July 1996.

(Signed)

William Douglas
E. Razafindralambo
Egli
A.B. Gardner

Updated by PFR. Approved by CC. Last update: 7 July 2000.

Long story short, in his capacity as head of Internal Services (alongside other people), Minnoye was found guilty and the EPO was forced to pay each victim “500 German marks in damages for moral injury.” Notice that it took several years for justice to be served, as is usual when dealing with I.L.O., which is now overwhelmed by EPO-related complaints. Problems at the EPO clearly go beyond just Battistelli. █

EPO staff is afraid to speak out (fear of revenge), but Techrights has no such issues

Summary: In an effort to put together reliable information about what’s going on inside the secretive European Patent Office (EPO) we kindly request more input from readers

TECHRIGHTS has been receiving a lot of information regarding what evidently becomes some kind of managerial exodus at the EPO. We are still, however, trying to ascertain the accuracy of information we receive. A couple of nights ago one person wrote that “Mrs Elodie Bergot ha[d apparently] resigned.” Based on further investigation, it does not appear to be the case (at least not yet). We think we know the source/reason for confusion here. It’s not too easy to keep track of resignations because there are quite a lot of them right now. There are also early ‘retirements’. We are going to write more about that later today and in the mean time we appeal for additional verifications (these can be posted below, in the comments, or sent through other methods/channels).

Hurrah! Is she BB’s scapegoat or is this the beginning of the end for BB’s inner circle?

Let’s hope that the following persons will follow:
Régis Hannart, the distributor of cooperation money which convinced most delegations to blindly follow BB’s crazy management line;
Mr Lutz, one of the most incompetent judges Germany ever produced, who provided the legal basis for BB’s actions;
Mr Willy Minnoye, a bullying, arrogant, ignorant manager (see contributions in Techrights.epo)
Mr Gilles Requena, grey eminence in BB’s office and Mrs Bergot’ husband.

[...]

Unfortunately, the above rumour is not confirmed. But the wish list of resignations remains.
Let’s wait and see the developments in the next days.

Until we post an updated list of the status/resignations (with high level of certainty and corroboration) please consider getting in touch with us. We need to at least try to organise this kind of informative list which EPO management is trying to suppress, as usual. █

EPO: The French connection and a rumoured link to the Bygmalion affair

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s strong links to Sarkozy and new reports about a corrupt network around Sarkozy lead some people to the suspicion that Battistelli too could (just could) be implicated

THE EPO is in a terrible state right now. This might soon leave the Office looking for new management. “Here is an update about the latest rumours at the EPO,” one reader wrote to us, taking note of something which we were never quite aware of, even though we knew that Battistelli was close to Nicolas Sarkozy, who is widely vilified by now (and for good reasons).

“It seems that there is talk of a link to the “Bygmalion affair” in France,” our reader told us. “The “Bygmalion affair” concerns the funding of Sarkozy’s failed Presidential election campaign in 2012. The latest rumour is that Battistelli is also under investigation in France for having allegedly “redirected” EPO funds to help finance Sarkozy’s election campaign.”

“This might soon leave the Office looking for new management.”
      –AnonymousIf true, then he and Željko Topić might have another — pardon the pun — topic for discussion.

“So far this is only an unconfirmed rumour but the allegations seem plausible,” our reader told us; nonetheless it is circulating in the Office right now. “Battistelli is a member of the same political party as Sarkozy and he even holds an elected political office in France as a town councilor in St. Germain-en-Laye,” our reader added.

As a matter of fact, according to the ILOAT in Geneva such party political connections are not supposed to be allowed for international civil servants [PDF]: “…an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party. Integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.”

“Battistelli is a member of the same political party as Sarkozy and he even holds an elected political office in France as a town councilor in St. Germain-en-Laye.”
      –AnonymousWe took note of this before, but if there is also a connection to the aforementioned scandal, then further debates are worth entertaining. “Another interesting coincidence worth mentioning,” our reader said, “is that Battistelli persuaded the Administrative Council to abolish its independent Audit Committee in 2011. This meant that all the audit functions at the EPO were under the direct control of the President!”

“Honi soit qui mal y pense!

“It’s incredible to think that the Administrative Council would have agreed to such a move but they did. They may now be about to discover the consequences of their monumentally stupid decision to abolish the Audit Committee!

“If there is any substance to the rumours about a connection to the “Bygmalion affair”, it is very likely that the Ides of March are approaching for Battistelli and his crew.”

We also received some rumours regarding Bergot’s department, but we shall say more about that a little later today (as we meanwhile leave a window of time for further affirmation or refutation). Our reader “didn’t hear anything about Bergot,” s/he told us. “But at the moment everything is possible if the rumours about Battistelli’s link to the “Bygmalion affair” are true.

“Sarkozy was President of France until 2012 so the picture that is starting to emerge is that Battistelli was “planted” into the EPO by Sarkozy in order to siphon off funds for party political purposes in France.”
      –Anonymous“Some background information about Sarkozy and Bygmalion can be found here [in English] or here.

“The subscription article from mediapart.fr states that so far 32 people have been implicated in the “Bygmalion affair” so this is a major political scandal in France. If there does turn out to be a link to the EPO, then it will be political dynamite on a European level. Sarkozy was President of France until 2012 so the picture that is starting to emerge is that Battistelli was “planted” into the EPO by Sarkozy in order to siphon off funds for party political purposes in France.

“If Battistelli really did siphon off funds for Sarkozy, then the Administrative Council of the EPO is also seriously implicated in the affair because those geniuses were the ones who agreed to Battistelli’s proposal to abolish the EPO’s independent Audit Committee in 2011 as previously covered by Techrights.

“At the moment it’s too early to predict where exactly this is going to lead but some serious “doo-doo” is likely to hit the fan pretty soon.”
      –Anonymous“If an independent Audit Committee had still been in existence in 2011 and 2012 it’s doubtful as to whether any kind of financial irregularity on the scale being suggested could have taken place.

“At the moment it’s too early to predict where exactly this is going to lead but some serious “doo-doo” is likely to hit the fan pretty soon. And it won’t be pleasant for Battistelli and his crew.” █

Remember these ridiculously Orwellian recent recruitment efforts in LinkedIn?

Summary: Even Elodie Bergot’s circle is suffering brain drain as a Director reportedly quits, and she’s not alone (pending confirmations)

SEVERAL sources have independently taught or informed us that the EPO suffers brain drain not only at the examination tier but also the managerial/secretarial tier. The crisis is ascending higher up to the top-level management and some rumours falsely suggest that Elodie Bergot is out after her highly suspicious — if not incredible — promotion. She’s not out. “The woman who resigned is Edda Feisel,” we learned, “head of “Recruitment and Talent Management”. Elodie was her line manager.” Nevertheless, the rumours around Bergot continue to swirl and sometimes get distorted in transmission (broken telephone). As one person put it: “Lots of other rumours flying around (i.e. Board 28 demanded that Elodie goes), but the Director resignation seems to be the only fact.”

“The crisis is ascending higher up to the top-level management…”“Upon reflection,” told us another person “it would be surprising that this kind of information should circulate so quickly over a weekend.

“Concerning Elodie, the word I got back is that the news are false, or more likely that someone confused somebody else for her. A woman has indeed just left the HR department, but it wasn’t Elodie but a person lower down the ladder who wad been recently hired and was still in her probation period. Reasons for the sudden departure [are] unknown.”

Having inquired further about the Elodie Bergot rumours, one person said: “If it is true, then Battistelli might be cutting ballast loose in order to survive himself.”

We shall reserve further commentary about the situation until we have something concrete and confirmed, whereupon we’ll give updates and disseminate other rumours that came our way (some go as far as suggesting that even Željko Topić may be on his way out, perhaps to be replaced by Elodie Bergot). Wouldn’t that be an incredible career leap? Either way, it’s a rumour which is hard to believe, so please send further information to help us separate facts from rumours. █

Summary: Investigative journalism from Croatia and this week’s probe into WIPO misconduct (and subsequent attack on the whistleblowers, including legal threats against bloggers) help put together a broader picture

Having spent some time separating facts from rumours (there are plenty which we still investigate) about the EPO, we are now ready to proceed to something new, or rather a new kind of scandal that nobody seems to have paid attention to.

Based on what we are hearing (and that’s not just a rumour), there is immense pressure on managers at the EPO to pretend that they support the President, even if deep inside they don’t. As one anonymous comment put it yesterday: “Certainly the letter will be signed by the various Minnoye, Topić, Casado, Lutz, Bergot, Hannard, McGinley, Requena et al. and by a bunch of fearful PDs and directors. But the letter will not help them. On the contrary, it will prove that the staff was right in their protest. If Kongstad’s letter is not a joke, the crisis is unavoidable and BB must either give in or go. Of course, with cooperation money and with secret deals BB convince some delegations to vote against the draft letter and create new obstacles. But the conflict will remain unsolved and explode again after few weeks. A good advice to BB: Monsieur, pack your luggages and go back to Saint-Germain-en-Laye.”

This mirrors something that we saw before with Željko Topić (letters of intent and perhaps forced ‘apologies’ under threats). One reader told us: “I am hearing interesting rumblings about the senior management “petition” to the AC. Some PDs are giving the Directors a “free vote” as to whether they sign or not, others are telling them that if they don’t sign it there will be grave consequences.”

Yet another comment said: “It should also be investigated whether Mr Kongstad received monthly payments from a secret budget of department 4.3 if proven, it would be scandalous! Mr Del Pozo, PD Finances, should finally come out with the truth about all that he had to sign. Soon or later all the dirty tricks and manoeuvres will be uncovered!”

This is not yet known to us, so it should be classified as a rumour. There is definitely some kind of an H.R. crisis at the EPO right now. There’s no denying that [1, 2]. Tomorrow we are going to show a leaked message from Topić, relating to H.R. Today, however, we wish to share something different, also relating to Topić.

As vigilant readers may have already noticed (it’s everywhere in the news right now), WIPO is in big trouble. As EPO-funded media put it: “The long saga that has unfolded since then WIPO deputy director general James Pooley made a number of serious allegations against the organisation’s director-general Francis Gurry in a report of misconduct filed in April 2014 may be drawing to an end. News stories from several sources – including the Fox News website and The Register – state that a report into the claims undertaken by the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has been submitted to Gabriel Duque, the chair of WIPO’s General Assemblies.”

Here is how WIPR put it

A joint subcommittee at the US Congress will hold a hearing this week on whistle-blowers and accountability at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

The hearing, scheduled for tomorrow, February 24, is expected to reference the results of a pending UN investigation into WIPO and hear from ex-employees at the organisation.

James Pooley, a former WIPO deputy director, Moncef Kateb, ex-president of the staff association, and Miranda Brown, an adviser to WIPO’s director general Francis Gurry, will be witnesses.

So what does it have to do with EPO? Glad you asked. Apart from the fact that Battistelli may be the next Gurry, there is something interesting about Topić. A reader sent us the details. Another newly-translated Croatian article from 2012 helps support this reader’s claims.

“Referring to the recent Techrights posting,” wrote this reader, the “Dnevno article from 5 February 2016 includes a mention of the role of the former Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ms. Vesna Vuković, as part of the “diplomatic network” of the former Croatian President Ivo Josipović who failed to secure re-election in 2015.

“The English translation of another older article from 2012 which describes the role of Ms. Vuković in more detail. In view of the recent speculation about a link between Battistelli and the “Bygmalion affair” in France, it would be interesting to know whether any EPO funds got diverted to Croatia to support Josipovic’s re-election campaign in Croatia during 2014/2015.”

Here is the Dnevno article in English with our emphasis in yellow:

A DIPLOMATIC CHAMELEON

Vesna Vuković hosts Mr. Topić in Geneva despite having systematically reported him to the State Attorney’s Office and the USKOK^*

[^*The Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption]

Author: Darko Petričić

Wednesday, 4th April 2012 – 11:19

The new government is persistent in its strange attempts to bolster Mr. Željko Topić, against whom a dozen serious criminal charges have been filed. These charges not only appear to tally with each other but are dispersed over a broad timeline and encompass many diverse sections and articles of the Criminal Code. Neither the State Attorney’s Office (DORH) nor the Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption (USKOK), have taken any action so far for reasons known to only to themselves.

During the last month, we witnessed the attempts of the new government to make bizarre appointments starting with the cases of Mr. Ferenčak at JANAF and Mr. Kovačević at HEP and culminating in the notorious case of Željko Topić at the State Intellectual Property Office (DZIV).

The DZIV – identified but not yet fully explored as an international epicenter of corruption in Croatia

There would be nothing strange about all this, if it wasn’t for the small but interesting detail that a dozen serious criminal charges have been filed against Željko Topić which not only appear to tally with each other but are dispersed over a broad timeline and encompass many diverse sections and articles of the Criminal Code. For reasons known only to themselves neither the State Attorney’s Office nor the Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption (USKOK) have taken any action so far, although many insiders who are familiar with the affairs of the DZIV and its operations as well as with the activities of Željko Topić believe that the USKOK urgently needs to move into that state institution with their best agents in order to carry out a thorough investigation of the allegedly serious wrongdoings.

Among the criminal charges filed against Mr. Topić, and in this case also the representative of the international company Lufthansa in Croatia, are two complaints filed by the owner of the international AirPlus trademark. It is interesting to note that the current Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the UN in Geneva is the co-signatory of these criminal charges against the Director of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office, and the representative of Lufthansa in Croatia, the attorney Andrew Matijević. In addition, over the phone, she advised some legal representatives of the owner of the Airplus trademark about what needed to be done. It might have been concluded that her main concern was to have these charges relating to the most prominent unlawful activities at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office dealt with.

Furthermore, in the summer of 2010, Mrs. Vesna Vuković personally contacted the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Dubravko Palijaš with urgent requests to accelerate the processing of the previously reported criminal acts. So it is patently obvious that Ms. Vesna Vuković was involved in the pressing of charges against of Mr. Topić and that she was personally motivated to do so. But that’s not the end of the story. Together with the owner of the Airplus trademark, in the summer of 2010 she co- signed the letters addressed to the USKOK and the National Council for Monitoring and Combating Corruption in Croatia and provided the legal framework of the complaint which requested the dismissal of the Director of Croatia Airlines, Mr. Ivan Mišetić, based on the published news that he simultaneously occupied two positions of control – one of which was in Buzin [near Zagreb], and the other on the Lufthansa Supervisory Board in Frankfurt am Main. The story about this case was first covered by the journalist Joseph Bohutinski in the weekly magazine “Business” and was later republished in several other media.

Following that complaint, Mr. Ivan Mišetić was dismissed in the autumn of 2010 and everything else, especially his public statement concerning the termination of his employment relationship with Croatia Airlines, is a trite and fabricated story for public consumption. However, nothing has happened since then in the competent institutions of the Republic of Croatia regarding the issue of criminal liability for damage to the national airline and there is still no information as to whether the person in question paid taxes in Croatia for the unlawful supervisory position which he held for many years in the German Lufthansa or whether his income from that source has remained “invisible” to our tax administration. To this day there is still no answer to the following scandalous question with its manifold implications for issues relating to politics, corruption and privatization: Is Lufthansa the hidden owner of Croatia Airlines and, if so, who facilitated this?

Vesna Vuković – moral and professional diplomatic ‘chameleon’ of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP)

What is particularly striking is the highly unusual behavior of our Ambassador in Geneva and her official position in relation to the above matters. As a matter of fact, from the date of her appointment until now, she has received the above mentioned Director of the State Intellectual Property Office, Mr. Željko Topić, as her guest on at least two occasions because her job description and activities include following the activities of an international institution called the “World Intellectual Property Organization” (WIPO) whose headquarters are located in Geneva and of which the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office is a member. The evidence of this can easily be found on the official websites the of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office and the WIPO.

She knew – or at least she must have known – who Mr. Željko Topić was immediately after his first visit to Geneva. In accordance with the structure of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP) as well as from the point of view of security and information exchange with Zagreb headquarters, she should have been obliged at that point to write an official note and officially send it to the competent minister, with a copy to the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP) Sector VII in charge of information and safety.

According to the Croatian Foreign Affairs Act, the general regulations of the MVEP and the professional obligations of any ambassador, they have to function as State Attorneys. For example if, when traveling by public transportation, they accidentally overhear a conversation describing actions which threaten the security of the Republic of Croatia or learn of a criminal offence and the names of persons associated with it, immediately upon arriving at their office or embassy, they must report this in writing to the competent state bodies according to their internal organization. The proof of this can be found in the thousands of diplomatic dispatches which are currently being published by Wikileaks in a manner which illustrates the aforementioned problem by means of the publication of confidential emails between the embassies of various countries around the world and the capitals of their countries of origin and vice versa.

Why did Ambassador Vuković failed to act in the appropriate manner? Considering that a key role in her irregular and unlawful appointment to the position of the Croatian Ambassador in Geneva at the beginning of last year was played by one of the advisors to President Josipović to the detriment of other candidates and considering that, according to the information available to us, the President of the Republic of Croatia is one of the main patrons of the incriminated DZIV Director, Ms. Vuković may very well have concluded that she should be at the disposal of her new “boss” even though he is only one of the shapers of Croatian foreign policy. This supposition is supported by the fact that the legal representative of the Director of the DZIV, Mr. Željko Topić, in one of the aforementioned criminal proceedings is Silvio Hraste from the Zagreb law firm on whose premises part of election headquarters of Ivo Josipović during his Presidential campaign was located, according to some unofficial sources.

For the moment it remains unclear as to how Minister Željko Jovanović was dragged into this dirty game and why, for more than a month now, there have been no official reports of the inspection of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office by the competent ministries which was conducted more than a month ago on 2 February 2012. It took only one day to complete the inspection of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office which was conducted under the control of Mr. Saša Zelenika, Deputy Minister to Mr. Jovanović. We do not know whether or not the leaders of the WIPO in Geneva are familiar with this first-class corruption scandal and its epicenter in Croatia. However, according to our sources this case may soon acquire an international dimension.

Before his election as President, Ivo Josipović was a frequent guest at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office and in the office of the Director, Mr. Topić. Since he relied on the staff of the Croatian Composers’ Society (ZAMP) to fill the most important positions in the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office, he was certainly very interested in making sure that the international component responsible for intellectual property in Geneva was “covered” by a reliable person in the ambassadorial “network” as he himself likes to call it. All of this is the obvious proof of the operation of a parallel system of government inside our country and on an international level.

One has the impression that the current relations between the Pantovčak [the President's Office] and Geneva are based on the same pattern as the already famous “Čačić’s axiom” [attributed to the former Deputy Prime Minister Radimir Čačić]: “No Government, from now on you talk only to me! – and involve bypassing the official protocol at the Zrinjevac [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. There’s nothing new about this. As the first President of the Republic of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, used to say: “Tie the horse where I tell you.” This sentence usually referred to Croatian foreign policy actions and the inter-Governmental appearances of the then Foreign Minister Mate Granić who was never completely trusted by Tudjman.

EPO H.R. must have been utterly poor for quite a while if it actually hired a man with dozens of criminal cases against him, according to the above article. On numerous occasions we already covered the UN and the Lufthansa aspects, though not WIPO. Readers can find coverage on these in older articles.

Our reader has remarked on the above article as follows:

As the article about Ms. Vukovic refers to the WIPO in Geneva, the links about the shenanigans in that organisation which are appended below might also be of interest:

There should be a live webcast here for anybody interested starting at 14:00 Washington time on 24 Feb (that’s later today):

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-establishing-accountability-world-intellectual-property

Some reports:

Congress to quiz WIPO whistle-blowers

http://www.worldipreview.com/news/congress-to-quiz-wipo-whistle-blowers-9608

Where is the Report on the Allegations From WIPO Whistleblowers?

https://www.whistleblower.org/blog/122922-where-report-allegations-wipo-whistleblowers

Secret UN report finds against controversial WIPO chief

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/22/wipo_whistleblower_report/

Pressure grows on WIPO DG Gurry after submission of UN report and further explosive Pooley claims

http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=b7e820d7-ba8f-4e30-a385-0aadd2315000

Pooley’s written testimony can be found here:
“Based on my experience I can report to you that the vast majority of the people at WIPO are competent, dedicated and deliver as required, many of them well beyond that. But this belies a profoundly serious problem with governance. The agency, in my opinion, is run by a single person who is not accountable for his behavior. He is able to rule as he does only with the tacit cooperation of member countries who are supposed to act as WIPO’s board of directors. And he is ultimately protected by an anachronistic shield of diplomatic immunity.”

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160224/104528/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-PooleyJ-20160224.pdf

Miranda Brown’s testimony is here:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160224/104528/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-BrownM-20160224.pdf

Interestingly enough, we found two of the above reports ourselves (IAM and WIPR), but didn’t quite imagine that other people also noticed them. There is now another interesting dimension to explore; if there a connection (even if slight/meager) between what happens in WIPO and what happens inside the EPO (except the legal threats sent to bloggers in order to silence them)? Željko Topić might be just one link among several more that we just don’t know about (yet). █

Summary: Information from “meeting of DG1direct” (if true) serves to reinforce hopes that even Battistelli’s high-level ‘inferiors’ won’t support him under pressure

THE EPO “meltdown” matters aren’t being properly covered by the media (this will be the subject of another future post), so we try hard to keep our readers abreast of what is known/speculated/happening.

Based on this new comment (only a day old), there’s more of a mutiny — if it can be called that — against Battistelli, in spite (or because) of the pressure put on managers to pretend to support him. As this anonymous reader, who has no track record in this site, put it:

Information provided by someone who was present at yesterday’s meeting of DG1direct, i.e. the association of the examiners’ directors:

It was collectively decided at the meeting that with regard to the support letter, DG1 directors should act according to their conscience, i.e. they should not give in to pressure from higher EPO management. In practice it will mean that DG1 directors will not sign the letter (which their principal directors had instructed them to do by Monday).

If true, next week promises to be interesting. Later on it looks as though there will be a rather major strike, but if Battistelli et al step down and the dismissals of staff representatives get suspended (pending external investigation, and perhaps several more that are sorely needed), then maybe it can be prevented. █

The EPO scandals keep piling up

Reference: Golden parachute, defined as “an agreement between a company and an employee (usually upper executive) specifying that the employee will receive certain significant benefits if employment is terminated.” (like Microsoft’s Elop inside Nokia)
Photo credit: Money Crashers

Summary: More details (not just rumours) surface in the ongoing aftermath of the Battistelli regime, which is fighting to keep itself together

“Wow,” wrote Florian Müller this morning, “tonight (9 PM) even Bavarian state-owned TV will report on the EPO crisis.” He also said that “Bavarian state-owned radio (B5) just reporting on EPO labor dispute.”

We received several E-mails about it this morning (at least 3), as it has a profound impact on the legal community, not just EPO staff. We mentioned some of this before (prior E-mails we received about it) and today is an important day because German media coverage is starting to become a reality. It’s even on television and there are detailed programs on it, not just brief reports. To be frank, I am still pressuring some German publications behind the scenes, in order for them to do proper coverage of recent events; not sure if this will have an effect or not, but gradually we escalate the severity/tone and it appears to be working. We will say more about it in our next post.

“It’s even on television and there are detailed programs on it, not just brief reports.”Regarding Battistelli´s salary, told us one source, “I´ve said a long time ago that it´s supposed to be those 250-300k according to the scale (he acknowledged around 250k but I guess it´s a bit higher). The important part of his remuneration is the bonus, which was rumoured to be around 1.4-1.5 million. Together it would amount to the 1.8 million which multiplied by ten would give his alleged claim of 18 million for retiring.”

This is still the subject of an ongoing investigation here; we have a lot of data from many sources and we assure readers that once it becomes a confirmed fact (or leak) it’ll be a big scandal. Regarding the support letter (in support of Battistelli), our source told us: “Most of the directors refused to sign it. It was drafted by PD Roberta Romano-Goetsch at the instigation of VP Minnoye. I guess she couldn´t say no, having just been promoted. I hope it will surface one of these days.” █

A replacement to Battistelli should be chosen before the damage becomes irreparable

Summary: The letter in ‘support’ of Battistelli is not a genuine letter of support, the imminent strike is under attack (more so after the FFPE-EPO MoU), and new rumours about Battistelli’s successor are beginning to circulate (Christoph Ernst, on the left)

THERE is no denying that the EPO (both the Office and the Organisation) are in a state of crisis, but a lot of it can be resolved if the Organisation removes Team Battistelli from the Office. The folly has gone way too far and it’s time to undo the coup. The EPO (Organisation) needs to start afresh and acknowledge this past failure to the world, including to stakeholders whose money keeps the EPO alive.

Christina Schulze wrote yet another strongly-worded article about Benoît Battistelli over at Juve (translations would be more than welcome) while other German (or Austrian) media did something similar this week, with few exceptions^*. Thankfully, despite all the propaganda (notably unions and results), the press stays focused on the real stories, not the distractions from FTI Consulting (peripheral PR reinforcement) and the EPO's in-house PR team that habitually resorts to lying.

“The folly has gone way too far and it’s time to undo the coup.”Some talking points, other than the unions and results, say that Battistelli magically won back the support of the Council. This is a lie.

“What PD Roberta Romano G is up to,” according to our source, is no good. According to information that we privately received, “PD Roberta Romano-Götsch abuses her position as principal director to “volunteer” subordinates to sign the letter in support of Battistelli. Dozens have been intimidated into signing the letter. Collecting signatures under duress is a scandal in an international organization that should lead by example. My prayer to the AC: deliver us from Battistelli!”

“Thankfully, despite all the propaganda (notably unions and results), the press stays focused on the real stories, not the distractions from FTI Consulting (peripheral PR reinforcement) and the EPO’s in-house PR team that habitually resorts to lying.”Reading between the lines and looking deeper inside documents, we have learned that Battistelli gets Minnoye’s help in this crisis. This isn’t too shocking given Minnoye's epic television appearance. “These event triggered several reactions from the Office management,” we heard. “First, between Thursday 18.02 to 23.02, the President and in first instance the VP of DG1, Mr. Minnoye started a call to all managers to stand behind them as one man by signing a petition at the attention of the AC. As far as we are informed the signature reaction is, at best, sluggish. In the majority of the Office, the managers seem to be unwilling to sign the call. Secondly on Friday 19, the head of HR (PD 4.3) invited all elected Staff Committee members (central and local) to a meeting on Wednesday 25.”

This is very much indicative of a disaster.

“Some talking points, other than the unions and results, say that Battistelli magically won back the support of the Council. This is a lie.”There is a strike coming (Battistelli keeps spinning this in the media by saying there were no strikes last year) and Team Battistelli is trying quite aggressively to prevent the strike from happening (see these documents which we published last night — mentioned before, now available as text). It may seem expected, but such moves mostly serve to alienate the staff and motivate stronger action against the management which strives to prevent basis rights, such as the right to strike.

Someone has leaked to us a CSC (Central Staff Committee) document which we present below without comment:

Information on the call for strike “Lawfulness at the EPO”

As a reaction to the recent disciplinary procedures and resulting decisions of the President to dismiss two elected Staff Representatives and to severely downgrade a third, a call for strike was formally initiated mid-January across the Office. The petitioners mandated an external lawyer to act on their behalf as their interlocutor, but the Office refused to accept this nomination, although they did not provide any legal basis for this. The lawyer therefore proposed to delegate his mandate to the CSC for all further action with regard to any upcoming procedural steps foreseen by the EPO administration. The CSC has informed the Administration that we agreed to act as interlocutor for the strike petitioners.

In a meeting on 24 February, the Staff Representation met the Administration, headed by PD 4.3, to discuss the claims raised in the call for strike. Coincidentally and in parallel to this channel, similar requests to the ones raised by the strike petitioners have been made by the Board 28.

Results of the exchange of views

a. Immediate suspension of the disciplinary measures

The administration merely referred to the option for the disciplined colleagues to file requests for review of the decisions and, if necessary, ultimately address their cases to the ILOAT. They showed no intention to quickly deescalate the current, tense situation by suspending these measures straightaway.

b. Independent review of the disciplinary cases

The Administration asserted to be in full compliance with Office rules and therefore saw no need to comply with this request.

c. Revocation of recent changes to Service Regulations

The Administration – without any substantial discussion on any of the listed reforms – claimed that a social study was underway which would identify defects and deficiencies which could then be worked in collaboration with all stakeholders. Apparently, revocation of any of the reforms is not an option.

d. Use of a Mediator to facilitate negotiations between the management and staff representatives

The Administration commented that “Mediation is a waste of time” and saw no need to engage any external support to resolve the current deadlock.

Conclusion

No meaningful progress has been made during this meeting with regards to the requests as set out in the call for strike. Therefore, a strike ballot will take place on 8 March 2016.

“For the strike ballot” we learned, “the CSC nominated two staff members to overview the process. On the background of key-loggers and other recent past events, the confidentiality of the vote cannot be guaranteed at this stage. The Administration declared that if the turn out was low, this was simply a “sign of lack of support” for the claims.”

“It may seem expected, but such moves mostly serve to alienate the staff and motivate stronger action against the management which strives to prevent basis rights, such as the right to strike. “So there is pressure to vote, not boycott the vote and go on strike in spite of it. This is union-busting again.

“It was declared that the administration saw no necessity,” we learned, “and had no me to run a paper ballot. And again, the SR took note that the simple administrative request made by the CSC to make sure the exercise was meaningful was turned down by the administration. As a general conclusion, the SR assembled expressed their disappointment that the attempt to find common ground had failed and that the organisation of the strike ballot should proceed.”

“This is union-busting again.”Any outsider can see what Battistelli thinks not only of unions but also of democracy. No wonder he's with Sarkozy. Although it may be too early to say anything about Battistelli’s expected departure (whether by resignation of by sacking), one reader pointed to this article and said that “the last passage of the article is the most interesting: ‘Tatsächlich kursiert bereits der Name eines möglichen Nachfolgers an der Amtsspitze, der des deutschen Verwaltungsratsmitglieds Christoph Ernst aus dem Bundesjustizministerium. Battistelli selbst, so ist zu hören, soll das für ausgeschlossen halten. Er sei allerbester Laune, heißt es.’”

“It says that there are already rumours about the next president who’s supposed to be the German representative Christoph Ernst from the federal ministry of justice,” we were told. “This is new rumour and if we add this article to the BR programme one can imagine that there are some forces behind. It is rumoured that there are already 22 delegations in favour of ousting Battistelli. All will be decided probably soon.

“Any outsider can see what Battistelli thinks not only of unions but also of democracy.”“One could say: The sooner the better (for everybody). The longer the thing drags on, the angrier the delegations will be and Battistelli’s conditions will get worse.”

Based on the EPO’s own site, Christoph Ernst was “elected chairman of the Budget and Finance Committee” less than a year ago (epo.org link), so presumably he knows Battistelli’s real salary. Mr. Kongstad knows it too. █
______
^* At least one English language paper is writing about Austria and repeats the EPO's latest propaganda (ignoring the real story), plus the German-speaking Austrian press, in addition to few other publications that we cited here before, the latest being the Financial Times (London).

Battistelli wouldn’t do what Blatter did, would he?

Whispering about what people close to Battistelli (his ‘clergymen’) have allegedly been whispering to directors at the EPO

Summary: A growing number of claims that directors at the EPO are being promised big favours in exchange for the pretense that they support the megalomaniacal President, whose days are numbered

SOME things are mere rumours, but when heard from several sources that agree with one another independently, then these “rumours” may in fact be real, or something close enough to a reality.

For quite some time we’ve abstained from remarking about rumours sent to us in comments. It’s about potentially more alleged bribery at the EPO. Several people have told us that Battistelli uses not only scare tactics and intimidation to get support but also bribes. Based on some of the latest rumours, Battistelli is more or less bribing people (e.g. with promotion) to support him. If anyone can leak material proof to us, that would help a great deal, but all we have for now are the claims sent to us, as well as the following new comment:

How can you work for an organisation, where the so called President is trying to bribe senior managers and directors, and vice presidents to support him against his fight with the Administrative Council, Unions and staff?

I happened to be in an area last week, where a vice president was speaking with some directors, and I heard him say “The president will reward you for your support during this matter”. What is that meant to mean, that the President is paying for support, as he knows that he has overstepped the mark this time, and certainly not the first time. Unfortunately, it is not his personal money that he pays with, no it’s the office money, which he is giving away as though there is an endless supply.

Another new comment says:

Not all employers are allowed to vote.

Anyway it states that 91 per cent of the 4062 employees who voted, voted to strike.

We have had enough, as now the Vice Presidents are using bribery as their new weapon. “You support the President, and l will see that you are rewarded”.

Time for a change, not just the President, but also the Vice Presidents!

We have been getting even more reports that the EPO’s President, Battistelli, is incentivising/bribing managers, but concrete proof is needed. Here is another new comment which relates to the documents we leaked an hour ago:

According to an article in the SDZ

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/behoerde-in-muenchen-europaeisches-patentamt-behoerde-am-abgrund-1.2889015

“Battistelli is said to be prepared to compromise on four out of six issues [of the letter of Board 28], but significantly not with regard to disciplinary procedures and external monitoring – the key points.”

It’s a lose-lose situation for him: either straightforward reject any request of review and risk dismissal by the AC now, or accept an independent review that will show the disgraceful way in which the staff reps were dismissed, and suffer a public humiliation AND dismissal later.

And we have not yet heard about the fate of the DG3 member: a second failure in obtaining his dismissal would only add to the embarrassment of the AC that was misled by the president …

Grab the popcorns and a beer, sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the next AC …

There will be a protest that day. █

Summary: An analysis of a presentation from Dr. Ernst, who is rumoured to be among the possible options for EPO leadership after Battistelli, who is stuck deep in or under the mud right now

TECHRIGHTS is interested in knowing whether the EPO will adhere to the EPC and refrain from granting software patents, which software professionals don’t want anyway (they already have copyrights).

Currently, the only person who is rumoured to be a contender to become Battistelli’s replacement is Dr. Ernst, whom we believed to have been among the opposition to Battistelli in the last meeting of the Administrative Council (December 2015).

“What is interesting is not his presentation but that the roundtable was chaired by Julia Reda.”
      –Anonymous“I’ve been looking a little more,” told us a reader (FOSS person), “and still not finding anything aside from neutral, political statements. Some are even issued through his lawyer. I did spot the following though. What is interesting is not his presentation but that the roundtable was chaired by Julia Reda. I do not know her but I do know that she’s been doing excellent work in the parliament. Maybe she is one of the people that could say what position Ernst has.”

We asked her yesterday, but have not yet received a response. A few months ago she warned that TPP would bring software patents to Europe and she knows the perils of software patents, being more technically literate than a lot of politicians out there.

Our reader found this video and asked about Dr. Ernst: “Is this him?”

“At 18:00 he seems to dodge naming software patents.”
      –AnonymousWell, it sure looks like it. He mentioned the EPC too.

“The part about patents starts at 12:15 to 19:00 and he talks about EPC,” our reader says. “At 18:00 he seems to dodge naming software patents. At about 20:00 he begins about copyright.”

Here is the full video, which can be streamed non-sequentially.

When Battistelli leaves the Office and goes back to Corsica where he comes from (or rejoin his political allies who are Sarkozy-connected) it’ll be interesting to see if the EPO removes the ban on Techrights. █

News from Munich…

Summary: A somewhat belated translation of an important recent article from Süddeutsche Zeitung

THE EPO coverage will resume tonight (there’s much more on the way), but in the mean time, as we have just noticed a translation of this article over at SUEPO’s site, here is the English version [PDF] with bits highlighted:

2 March 2016, 19:01

Front Lines Hardening: A Public Authority Teetering on the Brink

Header

Strife at the European Patent Office between President and staff veering more and more out of control

By Katja Riedel

According to the announcement on Wednesday by Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office (EPO), it is supposed to be an “agreement that truly breaks new ground”. For the first time in the history of the international organization, the word is that a staff union is now being recognized as a social partner, and social peace with the workforce, which up to now has been decidedly hostile, accordingly appears to be just around the corner. However, the Office has chosen to overlook one minor detail: The union with which Battistelli has signed the memorandum of understanding is called FFPE, and, in the world of the EPO, with a workforce more than 7,000 strong, that union so far boasts less than 100 members. And at the Office headquarters in Munich, where some 4,000 people work, and a war has been raging for three years between staff representatives and the President, there is not one single FFPE member. The social dialogue accordingly resembles more of a monologue.

The fact is that in the patent world, which is all but closed to outsiders, another staff union is deeply rooted. This is called Suepo, and it represents about half of the personnel. For decades Suepo was very powerful, and what it said really counted. That is, until Battistelli came, and, on orders from the 38 Member States which had elected him, set about shaping the Office towards greater efficiency. Since then both sides have been engaged in a bitter power struggle, but with unfair resources. The President has far-reaching powers, and he is not afraid to use them, liberally, which has ultimately led from escalation to escalation. For three long years Suepo has been protesting, not just internally, against Battistelli and what they see as his excessive authoritarianism, against reforms which restrict the fundamental rights of staff members, and against Battistelli’s extremely high-handed and heavily centralized management style.

For everyone to see, staff members have marched in their thousands through Munich and to the consulates, seeking to push the Member States into at least debating Battistelli’s reforms with him. But the only body which can give orders to Battistelli has long shown itself to side with the President, and has been gentle in its admonishments, even extending his term of office during the dispute and before the expiry date, until 2018. But now it looks as if Battistelli has overstepped the mark. Since last autumn he has been hitting back hard, suspending a patent judge, who in fact, given the power structure, does not actually come under his jurisdiction at all, which has caused a considerable stir in the various governing bodies as well as on the patent scene in general. According to the findings of an internal investigation unit, the man is supposed to have used more than 20 aliases to conduct a campaign of defamation against the President and other leading executives, and thereby created major upset within the Office. The man disputes the accusations. At the beginning of the year, Battistelli then dismissed Suepo chief executive Elizabeth Hardon, due to alleged bullying and complicity with the judge. Two other members of the Suepo governing body went with her.

Currently doing the rounds in the Office is a letter from the head of the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad, a Dane, who once had his eyes on the Presidency. Since then, he has been a Battistelli man – or, more precisely, he was. Kongstad has indicated, on behalf of 28 Member States, that there was something of a showdown with the President within the close management circle at two meetings in February. The main issue appears to have been the social conflict within the Office. In particular, the governing body wanted to discuss the case of the dismissed union members with him. Regrettably, it seems that it was impossible to engage the President in a meaningful dialogue, according to Kongstad’s letter. During the meeting he apparently rejected the requests out of hand, because the Member States were trying to undermine his authority. These attempts included the disciplinary issues as well as allowing the work of the controversial investigation unit to be vetted by an outside source. Battistelli appears to have then left the meeting.

Header

According to some newspapers, such as the Dutch De Telegraaf, the word was that Battistelli had envisaged stepping down, and was negotiating a golden handshake of 18 million Euro. “Utter rubbish” was the response from the circle around the President, and things appear to have calmed down again. Battistelli is said to be prepared to compromise on four out of six issues, but significantly not with regard to disciplinary procedures and external monitoring – the key points. Suepo are accused of stirring up the conflict alone, in order to secure their own survival. The union apparently refused to have further dealings with Battistelli due to the dismissals, nor were they prepared to enter into any agreement which would de facto have caused them to forego further influence.

How things turn out for the Office, for Battistelli, and for social peace, could well be decided in mid-March. Specifically, the demands from the Administrative Council will be high on the formal agenda at the next meeting of its full body. A straightforward majority of 38 votes could then force the President to implement the demands. Should he not do so, the Administrative Council could then, at the next meeting in June, call for him to step down, which would require three-quarters of the votes. The name of a possible successor for the top job is in fact already being bandied about, that of the German member of the Administrative Council, Christoph Ernst, from the Federal Ministry of Justice. Word has it that Battistelli considers that not even to be an option. He is in the best of moods – so it is said.

There is something rather strange (infighting perhaps) going on at Süddeutsche Zeitung, but we’re likely to cover this some time in the future when there’s more clarity on the matter.

Over the weekend we plan to work on making local copies of the TV program which covered the EPO scandals earlier this month (making a wave in Germany and changing public opinion). The EPO’s high-level management is evidently desperate to make it go away, to no longer be accessible online (this has already happened) and gradually be forgotten. █

Summary: The contract of Benoît Battistelli remains a closely-guarded secret and his mouthpieces provide different answers from what he ‘namedrops’ on the media

IT is no secret that the EPO now lies to journalists and lies to EPO staff. We are still waiting for hard, concrete proof of Battistelli’s salary (including all the perks), which should be made apparent from his contract (that he insistently keeps secret, unlike his predecessor).

A new translation of this French article into English [PDF] is rather revealing and below we highlight some of the more important and unique bits:

Autocratic Frenchman under fire

By Florence Autret | 03/03/2016, 7:00 | 618 words

According to the Dutch daily De Telegraaf of 26 February, Benoît Battistelli is said to have demanded a golden handshake to speed up his departure (his term of office was renewed in 2015) of ….18
millions Euros, which would correspond to ten years of service. (Credits: DR) Business at the European Patent has never been better. But discontent is growing against the President. Criticized for his authoritarian management style, accused of nepotism, Benoît Battistelli is said to have attempted to negotiate his own departure – at least, according to the Dutch press. On Thursday, at a press conference in Brussels, he denied this completely, and denounced what he called a “campaign of calumny”.

Article published on Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 7.00, updated at 18.00

On 3 March this 65-year-old graduate of the prestigious French National Business School came to Brussels to present the impeccable results of the organization which he has headed for six years: Last year, patent applications were up by 4.8% in relation to 2014. The European Patent Office, based in Munich since 1973, cashes in on 1.5 billion Euros per year when it comes to registering patents. Its biggest clients are in the United States (27% of the applications), Germany (17%), and Japan (13%), but China is gaining ground with 22% more applications than in 2014.

“This is a reflection of the internationalisation of its companies and a sign of how swiftly it is catching up,” was Benoît Battistelli’s response.

Last year the Chinese Huawei Group came in fourth position after the Dutch Philips and two Korean companies (Samsung and LG), and ahead of Germany’s Siemens. “Europe remains an attractive market for technologies,” as the President also notes. In other words, business is booming.

But in Munich, enough is enough!

But relations between the President and his personnel have never been very good. The Frenchman is accused of nepotism, having brought in as his chief executive a former colleague from the INPI, the National Institute for Intellectual Property, and whose wife has been appointed as director of human resources. The unrest within this organization of 7,000 people is no longer confined to gossip around the coffee machine. The facts are hard and plain: Burn-outs, suicides at the workplace, a whole range of contentious disciplinary procedures against staff representatives, and so on.

In January, following the departure of two union executives, thousands of EPO staff members left their offices to gather in front of the French consulate to demand the departure of the “Frenchman”. “It’s getting worse and worse,” says Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, French Socialist Deputy for French Citizens Abroad, who for more than two years has been monitoring the happenings at the EPO, and who, at the end of December, had an interview with Emmanuel Macron, the Minister of the Economy. In Paris he is said to have been given assurance that “no-one wants to wait for a fifth suicide to happen” before taking action. At Bercy, on the other hand, the response was “no comment.” A union source told La Tribune on Thursday that there were not four but five suicides in which there appeared to be a link between work and the lead-up to the act, and emphasised that the personnel, consisting essentially of engineers and legal experts, were subjected to “paradoxical constraints” between an intellectually highly demanding form of work and the pressures of performance.

In Germany, as in the Netherlands, where the Office employs 2700 people at the Rijswijk site near The Hague, President Battistelli has regularly featured in one or another of the media. On 2 March Bavarian television broadcast a documentary about the “nightmare” of one of the suicides in Munich.

“The suicides are personal tragedies. It is very difficult to give a reason for such a decision,” the President of the Office commented on Thursday. According to the Dutch daily De Telegraaf of 26 February, Benoît Battistelli is said to have demanded a golden handshake to speed up his departure (his term of office was renewed in 2015) of ….18 millions Euros, which would correspond to ten years of service.

“We don’t comment on rumours,” was the response on Wednesday by La Tribune, the mouthpiece of the EPO, which is one of the ever shrinking group of organizations which does not publish details of the salaries of its executives… Replying to a question from La Tribune, the President indicated that his annual salary, which is not officially published, was “300,000 Euros” annually. The rumours of his departure and the golden handshake, published by De Telegraaf, were “totally unfounded,” he maintained. These 18 million would correspond to the bonus distributed in 2015 to part of the personnel on the basis of performance indicators. “This is a political campaign”, and “calumny” says President Battistelli, who, incidentally was elected onto the municipal council of Saint-Germain en Laye on a list close to the Republicans.

For Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, the social crisis is only a reflection of the crisis in management. The rule of “one country, one vote” prevails on the governing body, the Administrative Council. “With that principle, you can create silence” by lumping together coalitions of small countries, the Deputy explains. He goes on: “It would be a welcome step if the Member States were to take the matter in hand” by attending a ministerial conference, which has not happened for fifteen years, he says. One country, one vote: “It is the basic rule for international organizations,” replies the President of the EPO. “If the Member States want to change it, I have no objection… but I wish them good luck.” The EPO, which has 38 Member States, is not actually an institution of the European Union, where the influence of the states is weighted according to their size. The situation remains that, as from 2017, it is supposed to deliver the “Unitary Patent”, an industrial and intellectual property instrument created by the European legislature.

The next meeting of the Administrative Council is scheduled for 16 March, and promises to be a stormy event. The revolt has spread from the departments within the Office and is gaining ground among the representatives of the 38 Member States of the organization. In a recent letter to his associate members of the European Union, the Director General of the Patent Office, Jesper Kongstad, a Dane, gave notice of the lodging of a motion demanding an independent audit of the organization, and the suspension of the contentious disciplinary proceedings being taken against the staff representatives. The EPO management has given assurance that the wording of the document which will be submitted to the Council will be “considerably softened.” The President has already announced the convening of a “social conference” in the autumn and the issue of an invitation to tender for the recruitment of an “independent expert” whose task will be to come up with answers about the social situation. On 4 March he is scheduled to meet Martijn Van Dam at The Hague. The Dutch Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has been briefed about the social situation at the Rijswijk site. “The Netherlands are one of the countries which benefits most from the activity of the EPO, both as an employer as well as by way of the number of patents registered by its companies,” was the President’s rejoinder on Thursday. The Netherlands are the fifth country in the organization in terms of patents registered, and Philips hold the lead among the companies involved. Watch this space.

We have had a lot of input about Battistelli’s secret contract (it’s not what Battistelli claims without providing any evidence to the media), but we still hope that someone can leak it to us because of what Battistelli said. █

Antonio Campinos: potential EPO reformer or more of the same?

Summary: Information about the man who is rumoured to be parachuted in to replace Battistelli and continue some of his less desirable legacy

Later this week the Administrative Council of the EPO (Organisation) will be gathering to speak about the Office, so I took a whole week off work (just so that I can properly cover the outcome). We have been receiving various EPO rumours recently, some easier to substantiate than others. Today we wish to share a particular strand of rumours. It’s about Battistelli’s succession, or rather his replacement (succession implies graceful transition without effective change in policy/direction).

“It’s about Battistelli’s succession, or rather his replacement (succession implies graceful transition without effective change in policy/direction).”We have already published many articles about Christoph Ernst [1, 2, 3, 4] and in particular his stance on software patents (which is of special interest to us). Scroll down to the part about Christoph Ernst in this post about the last Administrative Council meeting to see what he said about Battistelli

The relevant part is this:

To paraphrase Mr. Ernst, the Head of the German delegation (to the best of my knowledge): “The president reports positive developments. I do not
share this view.[...] The president has spoken 40 minutes, of which only 2 minutes on the social situation.”

That was 3 months ago and things have changed a lot, particularly in light of the Board 28 intervention with its leaked letter and leaked conclusions.

“A competent “outsider” with a credible track-record would probably be more acceptable to EPO staff but at the moment no such candidates are visible.”
      –AnonymousWe now believe — albeit with great caution — that we know about another candidate for Battistelli’s position (EPO presidency). “To try and sort out the current mess at the EPO,” one person told us, “you would probably need someone of mythical proportions like Hercules. As can be seen from the names which are currently being bandied about, any prospective candidates are likely to come from the “inner circle” of the Administrative Council. The problem here is that the Administrative Council is or at least appears to have been so heavily complicit in the activities of the current “regime” for so long now that all of its members are potentially “tainted”.

“In reality, the Administrative Council is a diverse body and there are undoubtedly some people there who have been critical of Battistelli’s misdeeds and excesses. So it’s probably a little unfair to tar all its members with the same brush. But the point is that EPO staff are likely to be understandably sceptical about any successor to Battistelli who comes from the ranks of the Administrative Council.”

It is worth noting here that even Battistelli himself came from the Administrative Council, where he’s alleged to have been one of the (perhaps) two “alpha-males” who pushed Brimelow out, paving the way to Battistelli’s ‘takeover’ with a secretive contract (Brimelow’s contract wasn’t secret). We wrote about this several times last year.

“During his time as President of the Directive Council of the Portugese National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Campinos also sat on the Administrative Council of the EPO.”
      –Anonymous“A competent “outsider” with a credible track-record would probably be more acceptable to EPO staff but at the moment no such candidates are visible,” a person told us. “Another name that we [collectively speaking] are starting to hear with increasing frequency as a potential replacement for Battistelli is that of the current President of OHIM: António Campinos. We [collectively speaking] are bit sceptical about Campinos because from what we [collectively speaking] have been able to gather he is another “insider” who also seems to have close connections to Battistelli and other members of the “inner circle”. Some information about Campinos follows.”

Suffice to say, this serves to legitimise claims that Campinos is in the rumour mill (we heard this before), if not a contender too. We kindly ask readers to treat this as coverage of the state of rumours, not necessarily of any concrete discussions, e.g. at the Administrative Council or Board 28. “Campinos is currently being mentioned as a possible replacement for Battistelli,” told us one source, “but so far these are only rumours.”

More background information about Campinos

As noted above, studying the background of potential future presidents is better off done before an appointment/announcement as this can leave room for veto power/opposition. Remember the bizarre, undemocratic, opaque process by which Battistelli inherited (if not stole) Brimelow’s position. We wrote about this before. Here is what a reader told us about Campinos:

António Campinos is the current President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

OHIM is basically the “European Trademark Office”.

However, in contrast to the EPO, it is not an autonomous international organisation.

It is an EU agency entrusted with managing EU trade mark and design registration systems as well as promoting cooperation and convergence initiatives with national IP offices in the European Union.

For more information see the official website.

---

Campinos has been President of the OHIM since 2010.

He previously held the roles of IP Commissioner and President of the Directive Council of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of Portugal and Chairman of the Ad Hoc working group on the Legal Development of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks.

From 2005 to 2007, he was head of the Portuguese delegation to OHIM’s Administrative Board, becoming Chairman in 2007, prior to his election as President. Since 2013, Mr Campinos has also served as President of the Administrative Council of the Centre d’Études Internationales de la Propiété Intellectuelle (CEIPI).

SOURCE: https://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/jury.html

During his time as President of the Directive Council of the Portugese National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Campinos also sat on the Administrative Council of the EPO.

---

There is regular cross-contact between the OHIM and the EPO in the field of IP and Campinos often features in press releases with Battistelli or appears at the same IP events.

For example:

2011 – EPO and OHIM agree closer cooperation

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2011/20110504.html

December 05, 2013 – IP contribution study unveiled in Brussels

https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/sl/web/observatory/news?p_p_id=csnews_WAR_csnewsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=2&journalId=520482&journalRelatedId=manual/

Official Launch of New EU-China Intellectual Property Cooperation

“Building on the solid foundations created by the previous EU-China projects IPR1 and IPR2, the a new action will be implemented over a period of three years by OHIM, the EU´s largest intellectual property agency, in partnership the European Patent Office as partner. On the Chinese side will be the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Commerce, coordinating the Chinese contribution to the cooperation action, with the participation of more than 15 Chinese IP authorities.”

http://www.ag-ip-news.com/news.aspx?id=31995&lang=en

Training Centre for European patent judges opened in Budapest

https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/training-centre-european-patent-judges-opened-budapest

There isn’t necessarily anything suspicious about any of this.

It can be seen as part and parcel of routine professional contacts between the Directors of two intergovernmental European IP bodies.

However, it should be noticed that Campinos seems to have quite a cosy relationship with the EPO because he managed to get appointed as a jury member for the European Inventor Award which is one of Battistelli’s favourite annual extravaganzas.

European Inventor Award – Jury members

https://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/jury.html

---

It has been discovered that there is an even more interesting connection which involves the Menéndez Pelayo International University (UIMP) in Spain.

A key player here seems to be the former Director of the Spanish Intellectual Property Office and current EPO Vice-President, Alberto Casado Casado Cerviño who as people may recall got a mention in an article published in a Spanish newspaper last year:

http://www.elconfidencial.com/economia/2015-11-26/suicidios-espionaje-nepotismo-la-oficina-europea-de-patentes-es-un-polvorin_1107057/

What is interesting here is that Casado Cerviño, Battistelli and Campinos regularly appear as guest speakers at IP seminars organised by the UIMP.

http://www.uimp.es/agenda-link.html?id_actividad=62I9&anyaca=2015-16

[Editor’s note: we have decided to locally store the PDFs proving it [1, 2], including an English version, as these may become unavailable in the future]

These connections seem to go back to at least 2011 when Casado Cerviño was still Director of the Spanish Intellectual Property Office and a member of the Administrative Council and they have continued after his appointment as EPO Vice-President (see the attached PDFs).

Casado Cerviño was appointed as EPO Vice-President in 2012:

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2012/20120905_de.html

By a curious coincidence, Battistelli was awarded with an honorary doctorate from the UIMP in July 2014:

http://www.uimp.es/institucional/doctorado-honoris-causa.html

Maybe Spanish contacts/readers can provide more information about these connections.

---

In his role as President of the OHIM, Campinos regularly meets with the Directors of national Intellectual Property Offices.

Some interesting photos can be found on the websites of these national Intellectual Property Offices.

For example:

http://www.dziv.hr/en/news/memorandum-of-understanding-signed-between-ohim-and-the-office-%28sipo%29,55.html

One can guess that Campinos was not amused to see this photo re-appear in an article entitled “Criminal proceedings pending against Topić in six cases” which was published by the Croatian news portal tjedno.hr in April 2012:

http://www.tjedno.hr/protiv-topia-se-vodi-est-postupaka/

That’s not suggesting that Campinos had any involvement in the alleged irregularities at the SIPO Croatia but we guess that it must have embarrassing for him to have his official photograph with Topic “recycled” in an article reporting about these matters.

An English translation of this article will be published at a later date.

Campinos and Battistelli: more information about EPO & OHIM cooperation

According to a 2010 article from James Nurton (MIP), Campinos won praises from WIPO. “At WIPO,” Nurton noted, “he won plaudits for his ability to encourage parties with different priorities to reach consensus.” Remember that Battistelli nearly became head of WIPO, which is now deep/mired in scandals of its own and may have other EPO connections. “Campinos was interviewed by Managing IP [MIP] in 2008,” Nurton concluded.

A reader added some bits to elaborate on/comment about possible overlaps between Campinos and Battistelli:

In 2013 EPO and OHIM jointly launched a Report on the economic performance of IP-intensive industries in the EU.

The report was subsequently criticised by Annette Kur and Dietmar Harhoff of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: “In September 2013, EPO and OHIM jointly launched a Report on the economic performance of IP-intensive industries in the EU. Ever since its publication, the Report has been cited as bearing proof to the economic importance of IP, thereby bolstering claims for further enforcement-enhancing measures and policies. However, the eagerness with which the Report is instrumentalized for political purposes ignores the fact that, as the economists performing the study themselves have emphasized, their findings do not provide evidence regarding the causal relationship between IP and the economic data. Instead of serving a better understanding of the economics of IP, such politically tainted over-interpretations might actually discredit the analytical results and the advances in setting up a comprehensive database of IPR utilization at the firm level.”

See also this article published by IP Watch, “Researchers Say EPO/OHIM Study Is A Tale Without A Message”

A PDF of the EPO/OHIM report bears the signatures of Battistelli and Campinos.

---

Based on information coming from reliable sources who are close to the action, Campinos seems to be the preferred successor candidate of the Battistelli-Kongstad axis inside the Administrative Council.

It has also been suggested that he may have political support at EU level.

Apparently some people in Brussels are getting worried that the current turbulent situation at the EPO could have an adverse effect on the planned timetable for the introduction of the Unitary Patent. In these circles it seems that Campinos is viewed as someone who could be parachuted in to stabilise the situation at the EPO.

If Battistelli’s position inside the EPO is so weakened that he is forced to depart prematurely, the “game plan” in these circles seems to be to install Campinos as a “safe pair of hands” who can be trusted to manage any fallout arising from the sudden “regime change”.

It also seems that those supporting Campinos on the Administrative Council (i.e the pro-Battistelli faction led by Kongstad) are hoping that he can be relied upon to keep as many skeletons as possible from the Battistelli era safely in their closets.

A copy of the critique by Annette Kur and Dietmar Harhoff has been made local for future reference and long-term preservation. It responds to a report signed both by Battistelli and Campinos.

The notion that Battistelli would need to be thrown aside while maintaining his agenda isn’t totally outlandish. As this one comment put it this morning, EPO policies may be “the very same ones where the TTIP was “negotiated”. [...] pump for the UPC.” Here is the comment in full:

I do not for one moment believe that it was the management of the EPO who decided anything. They are only the obedient “implementers” and certainly not the master strategists.

The “decisions” are more likely to have been made behind closed doors in some smoke-filled rooms in Brussels or elsewhere. Maybe the very same ones where the TTIP was “negotiated”.

Don’t forget: lots of “dodgy patents” increases the probability of litigation and could be seen as a handy way of priming the pump for the UPC.

In this context some senior appointments at the EPO in recent years might be worth a closer investigation.
Such as: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3016676/Moves-Margot-Frhlinger-joins-EPO.html

This relates to what we wrote about last night and responds to a comment quoted therein.

In summary, Antonio Campinos has a history of being on the side of Battistelli, whereas Christoph Ernst has an (at least recent) history of criticising Battistelli. █

People on a mission to destroy/crush and accumulate more power in the process

“I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.”

–Margaret Thatcher

Summary: Dnevno.hr, a popular news site which wrote many articles about Željko Topić (a locally-disgraced official), has encountered resistance and people from Croatia tell us more about it

THE problems at the EPO exacerbated after the HR department had foolishly hired Željko Topić. Maybe it didn’t do a proper background check, maybe he wasn’t honest enough about his background, or maybe the background was known all along but viewed as compatible with Battistelli’s iron-fisted monarchy-esque regime. Either way, Mr. Topić remains inside the EPO (for now) and it does nothing but discredit the Office (and by extension the entire Organisation).

“It’s hard to tell just how widespread this campaign of silencing really was.”The interesting thing about Željko Topić and other such goons is that they too (like the EPO) tried to take the articles down from a Croatian portal. We were told this by people close to the action and we previously saw what seemed like evidence that more than this one portal was targeted. It’s hard to tell just how widespread this campaign of silencing really was. Topić repeatedly lost a defamation case about it. See for instance some of the following articles (not a complete list):

• Suspicion of High-Level Corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO): Part I
• Vesna Stilin’s Remarks on Željko Topić: Part XI
• Vesna Stilin Renews Her Fight for Justice in Željko Topić Case (EPO VP)
• Breaking: EPO Vice-President Željko Topić Loses Defamation Case in Croatia
• Text of Ruling/Decision Against Željko Topić (Regarding Audi as a Bribe)
• English Translation of Ruling Against Željko Topić (EPO VP) in Croatian Court
• German Translation of Ruling Against Željko Topić, the EPO’s Vice-President
• Željko Topić’s History in SIPO Leaves a Legacy of Alleged DZIV Vehicles (Bribes), Authorship Abuses, and Intimidation Against Reporters
• Translation of Full Judgment Against Željko Topić in Croatian Defamation Case Over Bribery (Mercedes/Audi) and More
• SLAPP-Happy EPO Vice-President Željko Topić Loses Croatian Defamation Lawsuit — AGAIN!

What we know for a fact is that Topić actively suppresses criticism (by going directly after his critics). We are not sure if he is also behind DDOS attacks, as some people allege based on suspicion but not much more.

“We are not sure if he is also behind DDOS attacks, as some people allege based on suspicion but not much more.”A month ago someone from Croatia sent us an E-mail titled “Cyberattacks to web site Dnevno.hr” — an attack (or several attacks) which we already knew about because people told us about that more than a year ago. To quote just a portion, the “news portal dnevno.hr” had a “short conversation with” this messenger, who spoke to the portal’s “owner, Mr. Michael Ljubas and editor Mr. Drazen Boros.”

“In several topics for discussion,” we got told, “in one moment we open old cyberattack to web site dnevno.hr in period Dec 2014 to Jan 2015.”

“I have had a lot of issues such as the above (DDOS) since I started writing about Topić in 2014.”Based on the message, “there is a doubt/suspicion on the company Moscow Telecom Corp (COMCOR)” and we were advised to get in touch. As a reminder to those who haven’t been following this saga long enough, Techrights too came under DDOS attacks around that time and SUEPO suffered DDOS attacks. It submitted a formal complaint to Dutch authorities shortly thereafter, but nothing has been heard about it since.

We don’t want to relay rumours as nothing other than rumours or lay the blame without hard evidence, but another source of ours with other sources in Croatia suspected, based on what s/he had heard, that it could, in theory, be related to Topić. I have had a lot of issues such as the above (DDOS) since I started writing about Topić in 2014. I am eager to find out more about the correlation, if any, hence I attempted to contact people from Dnevno.hr. That was a month ago. The DDOS attacks against Dnevno.hr are not the subject which we deem news; rather, it was the attempt to convince the site to take articles about Topić offline (effectively deleting them). This reinforces suspicions because there is definitely motivation. Here is the message I sent to Dnevno.hr (with minor redactions), in spite of the likelihood that they don’t speak English:

Dear Dražen Boroš and Michael Ljubas (whose e-mail I don’t have),

I am contacting you regarding Mr. Topić, now EPO V-P and formerly a source of many Croatian scandals (with ongoing court cases). I occasionally post translations of your reports but I also became aware of attacks on your site. I understand that you spoke to [redacted] and were going to contact me too. I am trying to ascertain the details regarding cybergagging, which I heard about from numerous sources for over a year. My site too came under attacks, and only after I started publishing stuff that relates to Mr. Topić (not sure if timing was a pure coincidence and whether it’s Mr. Topić who drew ire).

My plan is to publish a report on the matter and I need further input before doing so.

Sadly, I have not heard back, but shortly afterwards another article about Topić was published in Dnevno.hr, citing Techrights twice. It’s good to see that not only Croatian media makes it into west Europe but also articles from west Europe make it back into Croatia, generally making people better aware of injustices. We published a German translation of the latest article (still no English version). Most EPO workers understand at least German, so this translation may still be helpful. Very few can grasp Croatian (even remotely). Article about the EPO should come out in greater numbers and more should be said about Željko Topić (of SIPO and EPO). There is a lot of information already out there, but it’s usually not accessible to most Europeans, not even 1% of them (Croatia is not a large country/population). We need more articles in English, French, Spanish and German translated from Croatian. One thing that the EPO and Željko Topić’s SIPO have in common is staff suicides, but how many people even know this? There are also WIPO suicides with some commonality to be found in causes. It’s about staff which speaks truth to power or rattles the status quo a little, even if for perfectly justifiable reasons. “The staff representatives,” we recently read about EPO staff representatives, “noted [they] did not share their [EPO's] vision of priority: the “house is burning” and the head of the HR department finds no more urgent things to talk with staff representatives than about their personal rewards? The staff representatives stressed that it was a wrong priority altogether: while there is indeed a large issue of resources of the Staff Representation altogether, and the administration should focus on the fact that many officials are threatened, investigated fired or sick…”

Or having committed suicide (see the WIPO and SIPO suicides). █

“Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering.”

–Mark Shuttleworth

Summary: Taking some of Canonical’s recent moves into account, some pundits not only think it’s possible for Shuttleworth to choose Microsoft money over principles but also urge for this to happen

AFTER gaming the media for weeks if not months (googlebombing “Linux” in the news) and blackmailing Linux companies using software patents (for bundling, not just payments) while lobbying for a stronger software patents impact we grow increasingly concerned that the “embrace” phase (as in E.E.E.) is moving forward to “extend”. Microsoft is already paying Canonical (expect Shuttleworth to dare not say anything negative about Microsoft) and devouring Ubuntu, just like Novell with Hyper-V (enclosing GNU/Linux in a proprietary jail of Microsoft).

“Microsoft is already paying Canonical (expect Shuttleworth to dare not say anything negative about Microsoft) and devouring Ubuntu, just like Novell with Hyper-V (enclosing GNU/Linux in a proprietary jail of Microsoft).”Starting this week, sporting the big lie (“Microsoft loves Linux”), Janakiram MSV from the 1%’s media/mouthpiece (Bill Gates’ cheerleader) says that “Microsoft’s Open Source Strategy Is Incomplete Without This Acquisition” (he alludes to Canonical).

“To make the case stronger, here are a few reasons why Microsoft should consider acquiring Canonical,” he wrote. As Susan Linton put it this morning: “With Microsoft and Canonical’s new chummy relationship still on the minds of many, Janakiram MSV today said “Microsoft’s Open Source strategy is incompletely” without them. He said with Microsoft trying to change their image away from being Windows-only, it only makes sense to buy Canonical. Ubuntu has millions of users and “an army of developers and system administrators.” Besides people, Canonical comes with LXD, Snappy Ubuntu Core, and Juju – all things that could make Microsoft more competitive in the cloud and IoT. To Janakiram, there are no downsides for Microsoft.”

“It’s not unthinkable that Microsoft would at least attempt to buy Canonical.”Two years ago we heard of posts like “Why Microsoft should buy Canonical” and last year there were rumours to that effect.

It’s not unthinkable that Microsoft would at least attempt to buy Canonical. It already tried hiring (poaching) Canonical’s community manager for Ubuntu (he declined). But would Mr. Shuttleworth sell out more than he already does? Mr. Shuttleworth left some comments here back in the days after he had bought codec licences (for software patents) from Microsoft. That was 8 years ago. █

“That’s extortion and we should call it what it is. To say, as Ballmer did, that there is undisclosed balance sheet liability, that’s just extortion and we should refuse to get drawn into that game.”

–Mark Shuttleworth

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Rumour, Ubuntu at 6:48 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Microsoft está coercionando a la gente a pagarle por patentes, pero no menciónan cuales. Si un tipo entra a una tienda y dice: “No es un barrio seguro, porque no me pagas 20 dólares y me aseguraré de que nada te pase,” eso es ilegal. Es chantaje.”

–Mark Shuttleworth

Summary: Teniendo en cuenta los últimos movimientos de Canonical, algunos expertos piensan que es posible que Shuttleworth elija el dinero a Microsoft sobre principios sino también inste para que esto ocurra
DESPUÉS de evitar a los medios de comunicación durante semanas o incluso meses (Googlebombing “Linux” en las noticias) y chantajeando compañías de Linux utilizando patentes de software (por paquetes, no sólo los pagos), mientras que cabildea por unas patentes de software más fuertes que crecen cada vez más preocupados en la fase del “abrazo” (como en EEE) continúa hacia la siguiente “extender”. Microsoft ya está pagando a Canonical (esperen que Shuttleworth no se atreve a decir nada negativo de Microsoft) y devore Ubuntu, al igual que lo hizo con Novell con Hyper-V (encerrándo a GNU/Linux en una cárcel de propiedad de Microsoft).

“Microsoft ya está pagando a Canonical (esperen que Shuttleworth no se atreve a decir nada negativo de Microsoft) y devore Ubuntu, al igual que lo hizo con Novell con Hyper-V (encerrándo a GNU/Linux en una cárcel de propiedad de Microsoft).”

A partir de esta semana, sacando a luz la gran mentira (“Microsoft ama Linux”), Janakiram MSV desde el 1% ‘media/boquilla (waripolera de Bill Gates) dice que “la estrategia de código abierto de Microsoft esta incompleta sin esta adquisición” (alude a Canónical).
“Para hacer el caso más fuerte, aquí están algunas de las razones por las que Microsoft debería considerar la adquisición de Canonical”, escribió. Como Susan Linton puso esta mañana: “Cuando la Microsoft y Canonical nueva relación amistosa todavía está en la mente de muchos, Janakiram MSV aseguró que” hoy la estrategia de código abierto de Microsoft es incompleta “sin ellos. Dijo Microsoft está tratando de cambiar su imagen lejos de ser sólo para Windows, sólo tiene sentido comprar Canonical. Ubuntu tiene millones de usuarios y “. Un ejército de desarrolladores y administradores de sistemas” Aparte de la gente, Canonical viene con LXD, Snappy Ubuntu Core y Juju – todas las cosas que podrían hacer más competitivo Microsoft en el Cloud y IT. Para Janakiram, no hay inconvenientes para Microsoft.”

“No es impensable que Microsoft por lo menos atente comprar a Canonical.”
Hace dos años hemos escuchado posts como “¿Por qué Microsoft debería comprar Canónical?” y el año pasado hubo rumores en ese sentido.
No es impensable que Microsoft podría al menos tratar de comprar Canonical. Ya intentó la contratar (caza furtiva) administrador de la comunidad de Canonical de Ubuntu (este, con coraje que saludamos se negó). Pero ¿el señor Shuttleworth vendería más de lo que ya lo ha hecho? Shuttleworth dejó algunos comentarios aquí en los días después de haber comprado licencias de códecs (por las patentes de software) de Microsoft. Eso fue hace 8 años.
“Eso es extorsión y deberíamos llamarlo como lo es. Decir, como Ballmer dijo, que hay un no publico balance de liabilidad, eso simplemente es extorsión y deberíamos rechazar dejar arrastrárnos a ese juego.”

–Mark Shuttleworth