There is no doubt that currently EPO is deep within a process of self-transformation, the limits and consequences of which currently appear not yet to be properly assessable by the general public. I would like to point to two interesting postings on the EPO website which are not just brand-new but which are, I assume, less known than deserved.
A first interesting item worth to be mentioned is the speech given by Mr R. Grossenbacher, Chairman of the Administrative Council, at the ceremony of the handing over of office between A. Pompidou and A. Brimelow on June 28, 2007:
"[...] But let me speak about the Office. As I said before, its main task is an operational one. To fulfil this task, it must behave as a businesslike international service enterprise. It should not compare itself to international organisations with political functions, but to the most efficient national civil services and to private service companies; that's the benchmark. We should not rely on the perpetual and unchanged existence of the Office's tasks. If we did, we would narrow both the political and operational freedom of action. On the contrary, we must make sure that the Office becomes capable to react, within a reasonable timeframe, to changing political and economic demands. This will not hamper the values of a 'Public service', which are often and not always to the best of understanding translated into terms like 'customer orientation' and other MBA terminology. On the contrary: It must lead to excellence in public service.
Concretely, we must diminish long-term liabilities and the decision making processes must become more efficient and effective. One central element in this regard is staff regulation and policy. I am convinced that it will be unavoidable to come to contractual employment, to an independent pension fund based on a capitalisation system, and generally speaking to reallocate more benefits to the period of active service. Another principle should be to recruit examiners around 45 years old instead of 25, with the option (for the Office and willing staff members) to work till 70. This would at the same time be an important contribution to improving the capacity to innovate and the competitiveness of Europe because it would help counteract the lack of engineers and chemists in our industry. Young scientists would not be taken out of the labour market and older ones would be offered a second career. Another important aspect is the involvement of the staff in the decision making process. The current situation of staff representatives, who, on one hand, are part of the Office and subject to EPO staff regulation and, on the other, leaders of the Staff Union, is unsatisfactory in many regards. To establish a functioning social partnership there should be one partner on each side and clear rules about how to conduct negotiations and solve conflicts. The double role of individuals as staff representatives and Staff Union Representatives blurs the delineation of responsibilities, does not help build trust and hampers the shaping of decisions.
Such improvements should strengthen the Office, further enhance its capacity to solve problems, and make it fit for change because change will happen, as it always has and will. The question is whether we'll be frontrunners or followers. A lot of challenges cannot wait until internal reforms are completed. Reforms are never completed anyway - it's a permanent process. Important progress has already been made throughout the existence of the EPO, and certainly during the outgoing President's term of office.
One of the challenges will be to implement the outcome of the strategy debate, building the European Patent Network and, most important, mastering the workload. Without anticipating the proposals which Board 28 will present in this regard before the end of this year, I can say that the quality issue will play a decisive role in this. Opening up the search phase will be discussed as a means to enhance quality, but mutual recognition will have to be carefully avoided. During the search phase, we should welcome not only the contributions of the National Patent Offices and those from the PCT system, but also those from applicants and a wider public as well. Finally, the debate on the workload should include principles such as sticking to core business and striving for a lean structure with little overhead. These efforts will be decisive in making the Office an efficient, businesslike service enterprise at the disposal of the EPOrganisation and thus the European industry. [...]"
Ominous "Board 28" mentioned by Mr R. Grossenbacher is nothing else than the Board of the Administrative Council as set up by the Decision of the Administrative Council of 5 June 2003. Originally it was created merely to assist the Chairman of the Administrative Council in preparing the Administrative Council's work. Moreover, at the invitation of the Chairman, the chairmen of the Budget and Finance Committee and the Committee on Patent Law are to be regularly involved in the Board's discussions. But on the 106th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (26 to 30 June 2006), Board 28 was mandated to conduct a study on the "big picture" of how the European patent system should best deal with its future workload, as proposed by the EPO. The study is to be concluded by the end of 2007 and I expect that it will comprise major statements concerning, inter alia, building the European Patent Network, enhancing the patent examination quality (raising the bar, i.e. making it harder to obtain a patent), and UPP. The Council noted that the Board of the Administrative Council has to work in close contact with all stakeholders and would report regularly to the Council. Today I'm not aware as to how such contacts with all stakeholders are implemented but I guess that this is dealt with in a sphere of confidentiality.
Starting point of this scenario is the fact that new office technologies of today offer planners for future intellectual property offices wide opportunities to improve procedures under which their offices will operate, the places where their employees may reside, the people who may choose to be their employees and the intellectual property products that they offer the public.
In the scenario, the authors make a short visit to that world, dropping in on a few members of the intellectual property community of the future and watching them working during a typical day. They intend to offer this glimpse as a spur to the imaginations of our readers, as a starting point for a discussion in a meeting room or friendly pub. I'll give a brief quoting from the second part thereof:
"[...] When she first started at the USPTO as a young examiner there had been five buildings on campus, six if you counted Madison East and West as two. Then, one by one, the buildings had closed, as regional offices around the country opened and home offices around them started to flourish. Two, three, eight, twenty regional offices opened, each the sun for a constellation of employees working in their apartments, houses, local conference centers and even street cyber cafés. The Office had truly gone national, thanks to high tech communications. Her husband Girard had even suggested that they move back to Texas, and work from the remote office in that state, but only jokingly. They both enjoyed the Kennedy Center, Wolf Trap, the Smithsonian and the other diversions of the capital city too much. So as Leslie rose in the USPTO management ranks, and as the Office headquarters shrank to just a single building, her hassles grew.
As a senior Director Leslie was responsible for managing 500 examiners, spread across 16 states, 2 provinces and 8 countries. Though Leslie had been trained mainly in patent law, which was a benefit to the 472 patent examiners reporting to her, the USPTO was truly an intellectual property facility, and 8 design examiners, 12 trademark examiners and 8 copyright registrars were hers to schedule, lead, teach, discipline and inspire; that is, hers to manage. Tools to accomplish this impossible management task were of the same style as the original installations when she first joined the USPTO, but were far more refined. They included instant audio and video communications across the Internet and across the world, multi-person collaboration on documents, instant messaging and other office facilities. Of course person-to-person interviews were still highly regarded; so much gets done when one can speak freely.
But as always, the key to managing was knowing her people, a job she did well. She studied her people: their credentials, their skills and abilities, their likes and dislikes, their time zones and work schedules, and what motivated them. Much was different now from when she was first made a supervisor: she managed some employees, but mostly independent professional examiners. A few were in this building, Madison, but almost all lived relatively far away. Some new prospective examiners were trained for a term at the Office, but most now were graduating with a degree in Patent Examination from top tier colleges, on all continents. After certification by the Offices, examiners chose where to practice- within 75 miles of one of the regional centers, or in any location they preferred in a Trilateral country, as long as the location fit certain criteria. Just last year Leslie was pleased to see that a 10th professional examiner had located around Chartres, in France, so she could authorize a conference center there. It was a lovely area which she had visited for meetings and interviews, perhaps, more interviews than were strictly necessary. She still remembered that delicious French cuisine from that nearby restaurant that she and Girard had enjoyed. Perhaps she should set up some refresher technical and legal training for the examiners there, that she would have to oversee. Now that was a good idea.
Innovation was remaining the modus operandi at all intellectual property offices, and though she welcomed the challenge of change, it certainly made her job more difficult. Most recently she was considering the new positions of intellectual property customer representatives, and how she was to staff them. It was fine for the 'Execs' to conceive of a single Trilateral representative to service an applicant, to advise him on his patent, trademark and copyright needs, to schedule application flows to the Trilateral Offices and to other Offices through WIPO. But wherever was she to find qualified people to staff these positions? Perhaps she should advertise in the intellectual property bar publications, to attract older, more experienced intellectual property attorneys who may, for one reason or another, wish to enter government service. Certainly the concept seemed interesting: a single intellectual property office representative to guide the customer in his choice of property protections, work with the applicant's attorneys, and yet be part of the system sufficiently to schedule the work to be done in all the Offices in accordance with the Offices' capacities and availabilities. She would have to be very careful in this selection; she would be working closely with this person on all cases. She would like to model the selection on that first person she hired for the position, that guy from The Hague. He did a masterful job on that complicated embedded wrist watch case, making all the right contacts to get the applications examined and registered quickly. [...]"
OK, this clearly appears to be something like the result of a brainstorming session between U.S. and EP technology-driven innovators who attempt to finalise the very realistic concept of a European Patent Network (EPN) once it would be radicalised and generalised on the basis of the Trilateral co-operation.
It should be understood that this scenario does not necessarily represent the views of President of the EPO, of the Administrative Council or of "Board 28". However, the mere fact that the EPO has agreed to publish this on the Official EPO website indicated that top-level executives and members of governing bodies might not feel appalled when confronted with such ideas.
And it does not come as a surprise that in view of such prospects, not all EPO staff is full of enthusiasm.
It is worth to note that the essay of Mr Lucas and Mr Bambridge does have a chapter titled "inventor" but no corresponding part describing the scenario from the perspective of an applicant or professional representative (patent attorney).
speech given by Mr R. Grossenbacher, Chairman of the Administrative Council, at the ceremony of the handing over of office between A. Pompidou and A. Brimelow on June 28, 2007: 
European Patent Network (EPN) once it would be radicalised and generalised on the basis of the 
Patents