EPO-Connected Writers Are Using Alternative Facts or Fake News to Promote the Unitary Patent in British Media
EPO money travels a long way, even to the Financial Times of London
Summary: The misuse of publications for the purpose of lobbying by Battistelli and Team UPC (a small group of opportunists looking to exploit change that they themselves introduce) is worth noting, for its frequency is on the rise again
YESTERDAY we announced this new petition which accompanies this motion in the British Parliament (no press release has been issued yet). Half a dozen British companies have already signed the petition and we expect more in the coming days/weeks (Douglas Carswell is still the sole sponsor of Early Day Motions 940).
The EPO spent a lot of money promoting the UPC. This is, as one can tell, misuse of EPO funds; but then again, who would ever hold Battistelli accountable for budgetary abuses (many of which we have covered here before)?
Promoted by proponents of software patents in other countries is this new blog post from the chief of IAM, a so-called ‘magazine’ (more like a front group) that got paid by the EPO's PR firm and was supported by the EPO to lobby for UPC even in the United States. In our view, based on extensive evidence, this is a mercenary publication that also acts/serves as the EPO's propaganda mill.
This is what Joff Wild wrote:
[W]hat we can now say is that the UPC is on the radar screen of the British anti-EU right in both the legislature and the media. If a few MPs do sign the early day motion and the story is picked up by more influential outlets, such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, it is not impossible that the government could be forced into reassessing its position. Since the referendum, Theresa May has seemed to give special deference to the concerns of the most vocal anti-Europeans and in order to avoid an argument, it is conceivable that she might do so again – especially as there is so much uncertainty surrounding the UPC’s legal status.
Team UPC has been trying — by its very own admission (as noted by Wild a few days ago) — to keep the untenability of the UPC under the radar and out of sight for the above sites. That is not going to work for them anymore.
“This is, as one can tell, misuse of EPO funds; but then again, who would ever hold Battistelli accountable for budgetary abuses (many of which we have covered here before)?”Oddly enough, someone told Douglas Carswell (a Conservative who turned to UKIP to give them legitimacy and improve the tarnished ‘brand’ of the Leave campaign) that “EDM [Early Day Motion, which is going to happen soon is] to prevent ratification of the Unified Patent Court welcomed by Joff Wild [of] @IAM_magazine”
“Not welcomed,” Wild/IAM responded, just “noted. But it’s interesting the piece has been picked up by a senior UKIP spokesperson. Shows UPC is big issue for the party.”
We find it baffling that Some people out there think that after the EPO and its proxies had paid IAM to promote UPC (as they did, repeatedly in fact) they’ll suddenly bite the hand that feeds.
We don’t believe that the UPC will ever be ratified; even if it miraculously (probably by some nefarious means) gets ratified, after Brexit it’s very much uncertain that Britain can somehow remain in the UPC. The whole thing is an exercise in insanity.
“We don’t believe that the UPC will ever be ratified; even if it miraculously (probably by some nefarious means) gets ratified, after Brexit it’s very much uncertain that Britain can somehow remain in the UPC.”Earlier today the EPO wrote that “Poland joins the Federated European Patent Register” (just a minuscule page update), but remember that Poland is also a barrier to UPC (just like Spain, Germany, the UK and more, contrary to the misleading headline from IAM). The EPO does not like to tell the whole story; neither does IAM. Let’s deconstruct IAM’s headline, “With the UPC just two ratifications away, the anti-EU press and politicians in the UK finally make it an issue”; it’s not “just two ratifications away” (alternative facts), the media reporting the facts is not “anti-EU press” (or fake news), and it has been an issue for quite some time (we wrote hundreds of articles on the subject and politicians too occasionally spoke about it). FFII communicated with UKIP about it as distantly as months ago.
Throw aside the propaganda from IAM (whose editor is admittedly against Brexit) and be selective about sources of information because IAM is tainted by EPO and UPC money.
Speaking of tainted publications, we are surprised to see a complete halt (for about a month now) to UPC misinformation from Bristows at IP Kat; did the Kats finally realise that it was discrediting the blog? Or that becoming an echo/megaphone of Team UPC (Bristows UPC in this case) is harmful to their image? One comment, found earlier today, took note of it:
Looks like IPKat has been caught taking a “Kat Nap” on the UPC front, as some interesting developments have not been reported here.
For a start, the UK government has indicated that it will be placing before Parliament an “affirmative Order” (that is, a SI that must be approved) to allow the PPI for the UPC to have effect under UK law.
Second, ratification of the UPC has hit the tabloid headlines.
Looks like, if there is one, we could be in for an interesting debate in Parliament. Whilst the govt might try to stick to the line that the UPC is not an EU court, I am not sure that all Parliamentarians will appreciate the “fine distinction” (to borrow Kevin Mooney’s words) that this characterisation relies upon. The multiple references in the PPI to the EU (even including two references to EU law) could make this a bit of a tough sell!
Expect Team UPC to resort to dirty tricks; front groups like CIPA are already busy behind closed doors, trying to grease up politicians like Jo Johnson and lying to him about the expected impact of the UPC (the same old lies about benefits to SMEs). The FFII’s Benjamin Henrion, linking to this latest nonsense from UPC hopefuls, warns about the workarounds that Team UPC is attempting to exploit. “Hacking the UPC after the UK has signed,” he called it. Yes, that’s what they are trying to do with their ‘fluid’ documents that are only being shaped behind closed doors (or paywalls, or highly-tolled garden gates) by committees stuffed with wolves dressed up as sheep. █