LAST month and earlier this month we published about half a dozen articles about the collapse of the UPC post-Brexit (see the EPO Wiki for details). It is a real problem for the UPC and this problem has become increasingly accepted even among law firms. For instance, citing Henschel's article which we mentioned the other day, Benjamin Henrion says [1, 2] that "EU Patent Law will be Germanized without the UK "UPC judge were being accepted till 4 July, but UK judge applicants may now be excluded"" (Team UPC advertised jobs that did not exist and will probably never exist, which says a lot about Team UPC and its utter lack of ethics).
epo.org link, linked to from the EPO's Twitter account) say that there is "strong support for Unitary Patent package," but as Henrion correctly told them, "when you ask the patent community, that's like preaching your own church!" (they have only asked Team UPC behind closed doors)
"Other than the problem that the UPC is an attack on democracy itself, there are technical problems with implementation now, especially due to Brexit."The UPC certainly enjoys support from the self-serving collusion that created it in the first place or at least came up with the plan. Why is it that epo.org basically became a Battistelli propaganda site rather than something scientific? What will companies think? Small companies all across Europe do not like the UPC. Does the EPO care about them at all? Based on this article from Team UPC, Margot Fröhlinger said that none of the available users and companies expressed reticence to continue with unitary patent package. "Whatever they decide," to quote directly, "the UPC will go ahead. The baseline of this conference could easily have been: where there is will, there is a way."
But whose will? Team UPC is a bunch of predators, they don't represent the interests of Europe. Max Brunner (Ministry of Justice – France) is quoted as saying: “The project is good for business. Therefore we have to carry on.”
But the "UPC is harmful," noted Henrion. SMEs in Europe speak out against it, having caught up with the facts. Team UPC is basically, yet again, misrepresenting Europe and European businesses. Glyn Moody said that the UPC "good for business means bad for the public here: more monopolies, more price-gouging" (at Europeans' expense).
Moreno, another UPC critic, quoted Kluwer Patent Blog (part of or a wing of Team UPC) as saying "The UK now has to take certain political decisions. Whatever they decide, the UPC will go ahead" (sounds rather vain and assertive).
Watch who promoted this "Munich Conference" and the Kluwer Patent Blog post. And over at Patent WatchTroll's blog there's a Bird & Bird column about "Brexit Implications" (Kluwer Patent Blog is connected to Bird & Bird, which is a core part of Team UPC). Proponents of software patents in Europe like Bastian Best go further by promoting this London seminar and saying: "This could be an interesting seminar "Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe & USA"" (in other word, promotion of software patents in spite of the EPC).
"In the case of UPC, as one might expect, it's a bunch of patent law firms that write 'the laws' behind closed doors (no transcripts published) and then ask politicians to ratify or rubberstamp these."Perhaps the interesting thing will be the composition of attendants at this London seminar. Judging by this tweet posted several days ago ("Post #Brexit #UPC conference at #EPO in #Munich tomorrow http://bit.ly/29y0AAT @EIPLegal’s Rob Lundie Smith attending – look for updates"), Battistelli too was there ("#UP #UPC conference update - #Battistelli provides personal view of #brexit on #UPC - either UK ratifies or UPC delay until UK leaves EU"). Well, Battistelli will have left by then (it can take 2.5 years) and the EPO is currently in a state of crisis (of Battistelli's own making). The UPC as it was envisioned is dead/dying, but UPC fantasies persist and its creators carry on as if nothing happened ("#UP #UPC Conference: Dr Carsten Zulch: technically qualified judges means bifurcation under UPC only sensible in limited circumstances...")
"EU laws [are] written by large corps," Henrion noted, "wonder why people vote for Brexit. Especially when spectrum could be freed instead."
"When there are no written transcripts of what Member of European Parliament says in committee," he added, "don't be surprised people vote for #brexit [...] 15 years ago I requested written transcripts of the discussions in committees of the European Parliament, we are still nowhere" (source)
In the case of UPC, as one might expect, it's a bunch of patent law firms that write 'the laws' behind closed doors (no transcripts published) and then ask politicians to ratify or rubberstamp these. Remember that the Chair UPC select committee is part of the collusion to override law in Europe and this tweet from the conference said "#UP #UPC Conference: Chair UPC select committee - UK could still ratify and post Brexit politicians may or may not find way to keep UK in..." (all speculative).
"Given length of time Brexit could take, this seems an increasingly plausible scenario," MIP wrote about it.
"We saw the same lack of coverage surrounding the TTIP and TPP in past years; this relied on secrecy and at times on collusion.""No UPC critics are speaking there," Henrion noted, linking to this page. This conspiracy of self-enrichment by patent lawyers and their big clients requires that public stay sout, unaware and totally uninvolved. These people are just trying to ram UPC down our politicians' throats and the more the public knows about it, the worse it will get for Team UPC. "UK preparations for #UPC ratification are finished," wrote Patently German. "Ratification, however, will be decision of the new PM expected to take office in Sept" (they have much more pressing issues to deal with other than UPC).
As usual, all these secretive meetings were not covered by the media. There was a bunch of lies about it in the EPO's site and Team UPC blogs. Battistelli, at the expense of the EPO, is buying 'articles' in European 'media', sometimes 'articles' or puff pieces in favour of the UPC (some of his 'media partners' did this last year and this year). What a disgrace this is. We saw the same lack of coverage surrounding the TTIP and TPP in past years; this relied on secrecy and at times on collusion. ⬆