-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Thierry Breton is the sort of official who causes people to vote for Brexit (or similar exits from the EU); he’s enthusiastically defending EPO corruption and he also calls for constitutional violations in many member states — all in the name of patent maximalism (Team UPC’s coup attempt)
THIS morning SUEPO published links to these two replies from Mr. Breton, who not only promotes the constitutional violations of the UPC for his friend Benoît Battistelli (we’ll come to that later). He’s also giving non-answering ‘answers’ to formal queries from Clare Daly (GUE/NGL).
“The lack of real answers to these questions means that the EU too is indirectly implicated and responsible for EPO abuses, at least by turning a blind eye to them.”As expected, he has nothing of substance to say because just like António Campinos his role is to cover up EPO corruption, not to look into it. The lack of real answers to these questions means that the EU too is indirectly implicated and responsible for EPO abuses, at least by turning a blind eye to them.
For the record (not that those answers really say anything of substance), here’s what he wrote back:
>
>
> Parliamentary questions
>
> 15 September 2020 E-003298/2020(ASW)
>
> Answer given by Mr Breton on behalf of the European Commission
>
> Question reference: E-003298/2020
>
> The European Patent Organisation (‘EPOrg’) is an independent intergovernmental organisation. While Commission representatives attend the meetings of the EPOrg Administrative Council as observers, the Commission does not participate in any decision-making regarding the management of the EPO, or of any EPO/EPOrg committee, body or other organ.
>
> This applies in particular to financial matters, which are mostly debated and decided in a confidential manner, as ‘C’ points in the meetings of the Administrative Council, which observers are not allowed to attend.
>
> As a consequence, while the Commission was aware of the setting-up of the EPOTIF fund and of certain concerns that have been expressed in its respect, it is not in a position to comment on, and even less so to influence, the way in which this fund is regulated and managed, let alone its very existence. In this regard it may be noted that there are no financial rights, obligations or other links between the Commission and the EPO(rg).
>
> The Commission is fully confident that the EU Member States, in their capacity as members of the EPOrg’s Administrative Council, are paying proper attention to the financial issues related to the management of the EPO, including the EPOTIF.
>
>
>
> Parliamentary questions
>
> 15 September 2020 E-003299/2020(ASW)
>
> Answer given by Mr Breton on behalf of the European Commission
>
> Question reference: E-003299/2020
>
> The European Patent Organisation (‘EPOrg’) is an independent intergovernmental organisation. Its Administrative Council is responsible for overseeing the operations of the European Patent Office (‘EPO’).
>
> While Commission representatives attend the meetings of the EPOrg Administrative Council as observers, the Commission does not participate in any decision-making regarding the management of the EPO, or of any EPO/EPOrg committee, body or other organ. In addition, observers are not allowed to attend the discussion on a number of sensitive issues, such as financial matters.
>
> That being said, the Commission is supportive of the efforts of the EPO to improve its governance mechanisms, as described in the ‘Strategic Plan 2023’(1) adopted in June 2019. Particularly appreciated is the EPO’s intention to establish ‘a comprehensive framework for cooperation with the EU Commission’. As regards auditing, it may be noted that a Board of Auditors is still operating in accordance with Article 49 of the European Patent Convention(2); therefore, the disbandment of the EPO Audit Committee in June 2011 does not, as such, jeopardise the auditing requirements defined by the European Patent Convention.
>
> While the Commission is aware of the new intentions of the EPO regarding governance and auditing, which indeed entail certain changes compared to the past mechanisms, the Commission is not in a position to comment on, and even less so to influence, the related decisions and arrangements.
>
> That being said, the Commission is fully confident that the EU Member States, in their capacity as members of the EPOrg’s Administrative Council, are paying proper attention to the governance and auditing issues related to the management of the EPO.
>
> _____ (1) http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/2217f5b7cc07d47cc125841c00610386/USD FILE/EPO_Strategic_Plan_2023_en.pdf (2) https://www.epo.org/about-us/governance/administrative-council/auditors.html
>
Both references just parrot the EPO itself.
And from SUEPO’s site:
>
>
> We would like to inform you about the questions and answers raised in the European Parliament about the EPO.
>
> You can find the links here:
>
> EPOTIFQuestion: Question for written answer E-003298/2020 to the CommissionAnswer: Answer given by Mr Breton on behalf of the European Commission
>
> Audit/GovernanceQuestion: Question for written answer E-003299/2020 to the CommissionAnswer: Answer given by Mr Breton on behalf of the European Commission
>
Those answers show that the EPO completely lacks oversight, not just from the Administrative Council but also the European Commission (and by extension the Union). This is a recipe for disaster. They’re eager to even violate constitutions of European member states.
As somebody noted the other in a comment at IP Kat (regarding “European Commission unveils new IP Action Plan”): “So looks like the EU Commission is now basically telling the member states to go ahead with implementing the UP: “The unitary patent system will become effective with the entry into force of the UPCA. With the ratification process now on track following the resolution of the constitutional complaint before the German Constitutional Court, it is now expected that that the new system could start operating in 2022, following the ‘provisional application period’ that should start in 2021. Thus the Commission is calling upon Member States for a rapid roll-out of the Unitary Patent System.” Cynics who were of the view that the UP was being delayed simply to get the UK out of the door before its implementation will not find much in this to disprove their pre-existing views.”
That sort of misses the point that Breton and now the European Commission basically act like agents of the EPO cabal — the people who rob the whole institution and carry out a coup for litigation firms and patent trolls. █
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
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Fri May 10 00:31:54 2024