Even Max Walters recognises the intrinsic problems
Summary: Improved journalism in the area of ‘unitary’ (globalist) patents, also known as UPC, as opposed to fake news produced and trotted out by Team UPC, helps reveal the degree of manipulation and the inherent incompatibilities between Brexit and the UPC
THE EPO is collapsing and the UPC ambitions have a lot to do with it. The EPO wants to ‘produce’ a lot more patents, faster, then foster more litigation, everywhere. This may be good for injunctions-loving and monopoly-seeking pharmaceutical giants and their patent lawyers; price gouging, however, hurts everyone. There are many other issues associated with scope of patents, e.g. software patents that UPC would instantaneous legitimise in many nations which currently deny them. It’s an open door to patent trolls.
“This may be good for injunctions-loving and monopoly-seeking pharmaceutical giants and their patent lawyers; price gouging, however, hurts everyone.”We’ve noticed that some blogs no longer promote UPC as often as they used to because, just perhaps, they recognise that it’s unpopular (they tried to keep it out of the sight of pro-Brexit people and actual engineers) and maybe because they are afraid of fact-checkers, i.e. who call their output what it really is: fake news and lobbying (disguised as guidance). Even Max Walters, who writes for the Law Gazette, has begun openly expressing concerns about the UPC earlier this year [1, 2, 3]. He now has this new article about a recent debate on the subject:
Referring to a Daily Express article on the UPC ‘exposing’ a ‘secret plan to tie us to Europe’, Stothers said the arm’s-length relationship to the CJEU will not be enough for some people.
McDonagh said a reference to a new arrangement for dispute resolution that could apply to different agreements, outlined in the government’s Brexit white paper, could hint at why the UK may be willing to proceed with the agreement.
But Stothers said a previous incarnation of the court, the European and Community Patents Court – which also allowed references to the CJEU – was found to be in breach of EU law, ‘apparently in part because it included non-EU member states’.
“Some ways in which the UK might get round its UPC CJEU problem are clearly identifiable here,” IAM wrote about this article.
Who needs laws anyway? Just workarounds. Or changing the law as one goes along.
IAM got paid by the EPO's PR firm to promote the UPC and now we have non-stop fake news and lobbying from Joff Wild and him minions. Giving ideas of workarounds amid Brexit, or lobbying the likes of Jo Johnson and Spanish/German politicians to ‘impress’ Battistelli will certainly be a wise move if the goal was to attract more funding from Team Battistelli and Team UPC. But it’s costly to IAM’s reputation (what’s left of it). █