THE MANY articles we have written about the UPC predate it even being called "UPC". We're no beginners and not mere speculators about it. I have personally written about it for many years. I have read thousands of articles about it, including quite a few papers. Over the past fortnight we have posted a 7-part series about the bizarre (totally nonsensical!) developments in the UK, namely:
"I have personally written about it for many years. I have read thousands of articles about it, including quite a few papers."The last couple of parts are very long. They are also the most important parts because they explain why the UPC cannot practically happen. Yesterday we added to all the above. UPC reassurances in the UK are believed -- at least by some -- to be a ploy or decoy, as we noted the other day, citing a valuable blog post almost nobody had noticed. After we mentioned this (just a couple of hours later) it quickly grew popular in social media sites (culminating yesterday afternoon) and then IAM too -- in spite of being a UPC and Battistelli pusher -- spotted this. A short while later it wrote: "Interesting & not beyond bounds of possibility: UK's UPC ratification announcement a ploy not a commitment ..."
Dr. Luke McDonagh, who didn't buy the latest nonsense from Lucy and May (we quoted him a lot in the 7-part series), wrote: "PM May's view 'We're not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice' won't be true for a long time, if ever https://twitter.com/IndyPolitics/status/806814104870682624 …"
Later in the day Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows, who habitually promotes the UPC at IP Kat (unrestrained optimism and misrepresentation irrespective of what's common sense), asked in her headline: "Will UK industry suffer from Government's 'ratify now, repent at leisure' UPC stance?"
"UPC reassurances in the UK are believed -- at least by some -- to be a ploy or decoy, as we noted the other day, citing a valuable blog post almost nobody had noticed."No, because it won't even ratify. Extremely unlikely. Forget about it.
"The AmeriKat agrees," she wrote about herself. "Given that the purpose of the UPC is to "enhance legal certainty" in the enforcement of patents (see Recital 5 of the UPCA), it would seem perverse that the UK's ratification of the UPC would result in increased uncertainty for industry post-Brexit in patent law."
But therein lies not the main issue. There are much more pressing issues that prevent the UPC from ever coming into force here. An associate of ours spoke to UKIP about it and it's possible that a petition too will be set up soon. The UPC is not going ANYWHERE. We wish to remind readers that this whole "unitary patent" charade (latest name among many) has been going on for many years and the EPO along with Team UPC (of which Bristows is a key part) lied repeatedly or was being internationally overoptimistic. They want their opposition to give us and descend to defeatism. They want politicians to believe that it's inevitable and thus they must participate. Truly malicious tactics...
"IP Federation is not "represent[ing] the views of UK industry in IP matters," as we already noted here twice before."Speaking of Bristows, a key participant of the UPC echo chamber that lobbies our government, watch this tweet linking to its blog that says: "Following the announcement of the UK’s intention to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, the IP Federation (which represents the views of UK industry in IP matters) has published its response here. IP Federation recognises the potential benefits of the unitary patent and UPC system for industry and also of London hosting part of the Court’s central division. However, it also recognises that there is uncertainty over what will happen upon Brexit, because membership of the EU may (on one view) be essential to UPC membership, and because of the absence of any exit provisions in the UPCA. It therefore calls upon the UK and other contracting states “to work together urgently to enable the UK to stay in the system after Brexit and to prepare transitional provisions in case this is not possible”."
Bristows, you are drunk. IP Federation is not "represent[ing] the views of UK industry in IP matters," as we already noted here twice before [1, 2]. Calling IP Federation anything in relation to "UK industry" is like calling the MPAA representative of actors and RIAA and representative of musicians (rather than mere middlemen who exploit them). ⬆