How to elect a new EPO President - some suggestions

The IPKat had plenty of comments on his brief post earlier this week about the continued failure of the EPO's Administrative Council to elect a new President.  To add to the pot of comments already put on how the new President should be chosen (many of which seem to be about locking the relevant people up until they finally come to a decision) the IPKat also received by email the following carefully crafted suggestions on what might be done to rectify the situation. 


Suggestion No. 1:

"Your latest post impelled me to go look at the relevant secitons of EPC2000. Relevant parts are Art 11(1) and Arts 26 and 35(2). Currently they are stuck with this and until the AC can get a 3/4 majority for one candidate, nothing happens. But perhaps it is time for the current President under 10(2) (c) to propose e.g. an amendment to Art 35 to say that  after two failures to reach a 3/4 majority on the same issue the decision shall then be by simple majority vote. 

But of course that would require a diplomatic conference....

Perhaps a sufficient head of steam could be built up for a Conference of Ministers under Article 4a. There are, in my view, plenty of matters to deal with and of course the level within National Governments is much higher than that of the "Representatives" who make up the AC.

But I probably dream. Frankly I would like to see an Art 4a conference start with a look at Art 4(3), so letting member states express a view as to whether this should be enforced or amended; the present situation is, in my opinion, unacceptable to users of the system. But perhaps that's just my view, though I would be interested to know if it is shared by others!"

Suggestion No. 2 (stolen from here, and more a lesson from history than a suggestion):

"In 1268, Pope Clement IV died and 20 members of the College of Cardinals gathered at the Papal palace in Viterbo, Italy, to name a successor. Three years later, they were still at it. The Cardinals were split between Italian and French factions and the Italians, while outnumbered, had enough support to keep the French bloc from getting the required two-thirds majority to name a candidate. By 1271, three of the Cardinals had died and a fourth had resigned due to failing health. It was beginning to look like the only solution was to hope that raw attrition would eventually shift the balance of power.

But by the summer of 1271, the citizens of Viterbo had had enough. They locked the Cardinals inside, restricted them to bread and water, and took the roof off the palace.

It may have been a bit extreme, but it worked. After a one thousand and six day sede vacante, the longest in church history, the Cardinals elected Gregory X, who turned out to be one of the great Popes of the middle ages. (Among his accomplishments was reforming the Papal electoral system.)"

Another suggestion was that we should perhaps "ask the audience", or even test the candidates on how to interpret new Rule 161.  The particular attorney who made that suggestion did, however, admit that this probably wouldn't get us any further, which the IPKat would tend to agree with.


Merpel likes the idea of asking the audience, and thinks that a combined vote from, say, all EPO examiners and European patent attorneys might give the winning candidate a bit more of a mandate.  Tufty, cynical as always, doubts very much that such a dangerous level of democracy could ever break out at the EPO.