This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2015/08/05/coup-detat-vs-oversight/.
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The coup d’état continues while patents are going way beyond what’s physical
Summary: Board of Appeal members (typically limiting the EPO’s power) are being further marginalised by the EPO which is artificially and irresponsibly increasing the number of patents as if patent maximisation is in the interest of the European public
THE EPO‘s rogue management has been crushing workers’ rights to the point where many of these highly-qualified workers (if not most of them) routinely walk out to protest, demonstrating in front of their employer. EPO staff is not happy; to make matters worse, it is increasingly afraid and there are many suicides. It’s a toxic working environment. Last year we wrote about the EPO’s attacks on EBoA/BoA, which is supposed to enjoy relative independence. AMBA, which represents many of these workers and was mentioned here a month ago, diplomatically strikes back as EPO tries to weaken EBoA/BoA in Europe, just as it did with other potential sources of challenge/scrutiny/opposition (the EPO is seemingly above the law now, at least that’s what the management thinks). Seeing what the EPO has been doing to SUEPO and even a judge, AMBA must be tiptoeing here.
=> ↺ EPO | mentioned here a month ago
“Weaker EBoA/BoA would mean that Benoît Battistelli, Željko Topić and other corrupt officials can just do as they please.”AMBA’s request for public input (especially from informed practitioners in the field) is finally receiving coverage from the lawyers at IP Kat. “The new AMBA proposal,” explains the author, “reiterates the earlier concerns, but then takes the further step of proposing alternative possible reforms to the structure and governance of the Boards of Appeal in order to increase their autonomy. It is a detailed and considered document. The main feature of the proposal is to have, in place of the proposed BOAC of CA/16/15, a different body, called (for the sake of nominative differentiation) the “Senate of the Boards of Appeal”, that would have external members (in the same way as the proposed BOAC), but, importantly, would include a majority of Board of Appeal members. This would integrate better with the already existing “Presidium of the Boards of Appeal”, whose residual function under the CA/16/15 proposal was unclear and seemed rather limited. AMBA’s proposals are analysed with reference to accepted standards for the governance of the judiciary, embodied in the Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary, and the Council of Europe recommendations on the judiciary CM/Rec(2010)12, “Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities”.”
Historically, as articles of ours from over 5 years ago serve to show, Board of Appeal members helped ensure that the EPO cannot just so vainly expand patent scope to all sorts of domains like software. Weaker EBoA/BoA would mean that Benoît Battistelli, Željko Topić and other corrupt officials can just do as they please. The ‘suspension’ of a judge was a loud warning shot from these gangsters and EBoA/BoA staff must be terrified now. These people no longer feel independent because Battistelli just nonchalantly breaks the rules (he even breaks the law which he arrogantly claims to be exempted from) and assaults anyone who merely dare question the integrity of the gangsters (Topić in this case).
“The later costs are vast and those who pay the price are not the gangsters of EPO management (with huge salaries) but citizens of Europe who subsidise the EPO to pay these huge salaries.”IP Kat has this new article which repeats claims of “Productivity Increase at the EPO” — the same inane claims that echo claims of “Productivity Increase” (or ‘enemy’ death toll) by NATO forces in Iraq. As we have been showing here a number for years, the EPO broadened the scope of patents so as to increase profits at the expense of people who are bound to get hurt (e.g. extorted or driven to bankruptcy) by patents that never should have been granted in the first place.
=> ↺ this new article | ↺ NATO forces in Iraq
As Merpel put it, “it is not surprising that examination products are up. It is however still unclear what is the need for this. Merpel has attempted with limited success to discern the financial position of the EPO and has called for more financial transparency. She still cannot see why the senior management of the EPO seems obsessed with increasing the flow of patent grants in the short term, whatever the later cost.”
The later costs are vast and those who pay the price are not the gangsters of EPO management (with huge salaries) but citizens of Europe who subsidise the EPO to pay these huge salaries. What a racket! █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).