Also: the special role played by IAM 'magazine' in this weird kind of predictable spin

Picture from FFII, which really just opposes software patents

Summary: Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

THE management of the EPO has deliberately conflated UPC critics -- that's us [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] -- with other critics (we covered this some days ago, linking to a letter from the President, having previously seen this spin used against a suspended judge as well) while doing a lot in recent days to actively promote UPC (warning: link to epo.org, enabling tracking by EPO spies). As a recent guest post stated, a lot of patent examiners had already been supportive of UPC. To accuse unions such as SUEPO of having an anti-UPC agenda is ludicrous, yet it's actually happening, usually behind closed doors or in private letters (where there is no chance for anyone to rebut such bogus accusations).

“As a business we have received sponsorship from the agency [European Patent Office] [...] IAM will be accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the EPO”
      --IAM 'magazine'The EPO's management, which seemingly serves large corporations as a matter of priority (never mind privatisation of the EPO itself), likes the UPC. It has repeatedly lobbied for the UPC. So have some major international corporations, which probably hope that this would trivialise international/global patent actions, such as injunctions (embargoes), irrespective of local laws and domestic interests (e.g. a British company being frivolously sued by a non-British company over patents in Britain). See this new post from IAM which also conflates EPO disputes with "anti-patent campaigners". This is nonsense. Watch how the post begins: "Full disclosure: IAM has collaborated with the European Patent Office on many occasions. As a business we have received sponsorship from the agency, we have also worked with it as a (non-fee paying) supporting organisation on some of our event [...] we are proud of our relationship with the EPO [...] IAM will be accused by some of being a mouthpiece for the EPO" (the spending of nearly a million dollars in one single year on PR won't inspire confidence, either).

This reaffirms if not confirms what we wrote earlier today about IAM essentially behind in cahoot or in bed with the EPO. Watch how they're attacking SUEPO's credibility.

As IBM's chief patent guy, Manny Schecter (proponent of software patents, just like his employer and like IAM), put it the other day, the UPC may make a difference. Well, to whose advantage really? Surely it would be desirable for IBM to sue European companies everywhere in Europe in one fell swoop, or demand higher 'royalties' ('damages' being another euphemism for penalties or fines, maybe taxes).

"More importantly, be very sceptical of IAM. They're not like a 'media partner' of the EPO."Schecter links to this article, whose author is pretending UPC is already here and cannot be stopped (many patent lawyers do the same thing and the British government prematurely allocated physical resources to it). Here we have a legal blog saying that "we can expect the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) reforms" (as it they're inevitable, even though they're not).

Watch out and be wary of patent lawyers' spin, especially those who are in the business of protecting or attacking on behalf of large multinational corporations. They know where their money comes from. More importantly, be very sceptical of IAM. They're not like a 'media partner' of the EPO. ⬆

“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”

--Samuel Johnson