● 12.12.21
Gemini version available ♊︎
●● The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XXXIII: Swedish Scepticism
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Series parts:
Image: Susanne Ås Sivborg
Head of the Swedish EPO delegation, Susanne Ås Sivborg. [PDF]
Summary: Benoît Battistelli‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations” did not receive Sweden’s blessing
Like the Belgians, the Swedish delegation also abstained from voting in favour of Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations” in June 2013.
At the time in question, the Swedish delegation was headed by Susanne Ås Sivborg, Director General of the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV).
Sivborg graduated from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) with a degree in civil engineering in 1983.
“In 2009/2010 Sivborg was candidate for the position of President of the European Patent Office…”
Between September 1985 and March 1991 she worked as an examiner at the EPO in Munich. She then returned to Sweden where she worked in the private sector with various companies such as AstraZeneca and Electrolux before taking over as head of the PRV in September 2008.
In 2009/2010 Sivborg was candidate for the position of President of the European Patent Office, but she was outmanoeuvred by the alpha-male Battistelli and his Danish accomplice Jesper Kongstad.
During her time on the EPO’s Administrative Council, Sivborg crossed swords with Team Battistelli on a number of occasions and she deplored the deterioration of the social climate at the institution where she had started her career.
“During her time on the EPO’s Administrative Council, Sivborg crossed swords with Team Battistelli on a number of occasions and she deplored the deterioration of the social climate at the institution where she had started her career.”
Nevertheless, for the most part Sivborg stopped well short of any outspoken condemnation of Battistelli’s maladministration.
As can be seen from the minutes of the 136th meeting [PDF] of the EPO’s Administrative Council, Sivborg’s criticism of the proposed “Strike Regulations” was very muted indeed.
The Swedish position is minuted under point no. 114 as follows:
>
>
“The Swedish delegation referred to its comments on CA/56/13. It was the Council’s duty and responsibility to ensure a balance between management and staff and an efficient and good functioning of the Organisation. The Council also had to ensure that the Organisation fulfilled international conventions, such as the Human Rights Convention. It, too, had been astonished to find that the Office had no legal framework in relation to strikes yet. The Office’s proposal included several good and necessary amendments to the Service Regulations. There were some problems with the detailed wording.”
>
The impression given here is that the only problems that the Swedish delegation saw with the proposal were some minor issues related to the “detailed wording”.
“…at least Susanne Sivborg had the good grace not to cast a vote in favour of such a manifestly flawed proposal.”
That falls well short of what one could reasonably expect from the representative of a country like Sweden, which is highly-developed and has a strong democratic tradition.
But at least Susanne Sivborg had the good grace not to cast a vote in favour of such a manifestly flawed proposal.
In the next part we shall turn our attention to the delegation representing Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbour, Norway. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink > Image: Mail
Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.