EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.05.17

Is Bristows UPC Falsifying UK-IPO Quotes or Just Using Informal Words to Lobby for the Unitary Patent (UPC)?

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bristows LLP and EPO

Summary: The statement from the UK-IPO (the IPO) says nothing like what Bristows attributes to it, raising all sorts of questions about who is steering IPO policies nowadays

What Team UPC and Team Battistelli (EPO management) have in common is that they both lie. A lot! Bristows, for example, is perpetually lying about the stance/views of British people and it's doing this to enrich itself.

“Bristows, for example, is perpetually lying about the stance/views of British people to enrich itself.”Why do they want the UPC so badly? Litigation. Lots and lots of it. Battistelli is like Trump with “See you in court!”

Battistelli is gradually demoting if not demolishing examination, meaning that more patents get granted (even bogus patents), and more litigation is to be expected (except against Battistelli, as he insists that he is immune from prosecution).

“Battistelli is gradually demoting if not demolishing examination, meaning that more patents get granted (even bogus patents), and more litigation is to be expected (except against Battistelli, as he insists that he is immune from prosecution).”The whole idea of patent examination (proper examination!) is, people can’t just baselessly drag other people into court/out-of-court settlements. It requires some sort stamp approving some merit to one’s claim/s; that’s what patents are for. The UPC lobbyists, truly dishonest people (Team UPC) along with Battistelli, have a lot in common except cluelessness on science; they want litigation and money. Money! It has gotten so bad that, as we pointed out this morning, Team UPC ‘took over’ IP Kat and is now using that blog to help Battistelli. Meanwhile, few British firm are trying to sell their stinkin’ services around the UPC, regardless of how much damage such a regime would cause to British businesses that actually produce something.

What really got on our nerves today is this Bristows “news” from Liz Cohen, which is promoted in Twitter as “UK confirms it is “fully on track” to meet UPC timetable” (with quote signs included).

“Are we seeing IPO entryism by Team UPC?”Where does that message come from? Where are those words from? The MIP spin? Those 4 words from unnamed "spokesperson"? Well, nobody said that in a site; there is no way to verify that it isn’t just made up, conjured from memory, or even fabricated. Here, last week, we wrote about that in great detail and someone pointed out something similar in IP Kat comments, demanding an actual link to a statement or a source.

Are we seeing IPO entryism by Team UPC? Where does the quote come from? Is MIP (or Bristows) now spokesperson of IPO?

Well, let’s inspect the original, as there is no source (not even a link) in the post from Bristows and the same goes for MIP, which also used a paywall. We need to be careful with anything that comes from Bristows as we already know their inclination to lie and distort. “Anyone can produce a diff to see what has been updated,” Benjamin Henrion asked this afternoon. So we decided to take a look at what UK-IPO actually says.

The page, as per the Internet Archive, used to say (about patents post-Brexit):

The referendum result has no impact on UK businesses’ ability to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection.

It will remain possible to obtain patents from the EPO which apply in the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected. British exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system as governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. We will continue to attend and participate in UPC meetings in that capacity. There will be no immediate changes.

After the inane remark from Lucy this became (mind last paragraph):

The referendum result has no impact on UK businesses’ ability to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection.

It will remain possible to obtain patents from the EPO which apply in the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected. British exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system as governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. On 28 November, the UK government confirmed its intention to proceed with arrangements to ratify the Unified Patent Court.

“The IPO is keen to hear your views about these issues,” it says. Well, it seems to be hearing only from lawyers, not those affected by their actions. And now this is their statement (updated yesterday):

The UK’s exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system, which is governed by the (non-EU) European Patent Convention. UK businesses can continue to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection which will include the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected.

While the UK remains a full member of the EU, businesses can continue to apply for and be granted Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for patented pharmaceutical and plant protection products using the current SPC system.

Existing UK SPCs granted under that system continue to be valid.

Once the UK leaves the EU, UK businesses will still be able to apply for SPCs in all remaining EU Member States under the existing system.

The government is exploring options for SPC protection in the UK after we leave the EU.

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. On 28 November, the UK government confirmed its intention to proceed with arrangements to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement.

Preparations for ratification are progressing and we expect to be ready to begin the period of provisional application in the spring.

The UK government has signed the Protocol on Provisional Application and is ready for that to commence to the timetable foreseen by the Preparatory Committee. It is planned that the UPC will open for business in December 2017.

The "Preparatory Committee" is just Team UPC, i.e. a bunch of greedy lobbyists like Bristows. Sounds like entryism and a legitimate cause for anger over scandal/mischief.

“Wittingly or not, Bristows has become an expert in lying, not an expert in UPC matters.”Where does the quote “fully on track” come from? Who said it and when? Will Bristows retract that nonsense? Well, it’s not as though Bristows has much of a reputation to guard. They’re so desperate for the UPC, almost as if the firm would go bankrupt if the UPC does not come to the UK. Wittingly or not, Bristows has become an expert in lying, not an expert in UPC matters. Maybe the employees should change their career to lobbying, as some already have.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  2. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  3. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  4. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  5. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  6. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  7. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  8. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  9. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  10. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  11. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  12. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  13. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  14. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  15. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  16. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  17. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  18. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  19. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  20. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  21. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything



  22. Links 13/11/2017: Samsung’s DeX Revisited, Linux Kernel 4.14 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Time for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to Disregard Rulings From the Eastern District of Texas

    A look at the latest developments at the Federal Circuit and some bits about Microsoft's extortion using software patents (even after Alice)



  24. Alice (De Facto Ban on Software Patents) Remains Untouched in 2017 and Likely in 2018 As Well

    The patent microcosm (people like Dennis Crouch) is trying to find cases that can contradict Alice (at the higher levels, especially the US Supreme Court) but is unable to find them; as things stand, suing anyone with a software patent seems like a losing/high-risk strategy



  25. The USPTO's Joe Matal (Interim Director) Sounds Serious About Improving the Patent Quality and Services

    An expressed desire to improve the US patent system rather than treat is like a money-making machine, as illuminated in recent days by Patently-O



  26. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defends Firms From Bogus Patents and US Congress Hears About How PTAB Dodgers Misuse Immunity

    The debate about PTAB is being lost by the patent microcosm, whose attempt to dodge and demonise PTAB merely serves to reinforce PTAB's importance and continued success



  27. Links 11/11/2017: Mesa 17.2.5 and Wine 2.21 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Benoît Battistelli Gives Power to Željko Topić, Not Just to António Campinos

    Topić still derives power from Battistelli, who treats him like his right-hand man



  29. Next EPO President Will Continue a Cooperation Which Does Not Exist

    Kluwer Patent Blog is nitpicking the words of António Campinos and expressing scepticism about progress to be made by Campinos



  30. More Microsoft AstroTurfing by Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) and Mingorance

    ACT, now led by Morgan Reed rather than Zuck, is still meddling in European policy (software patents agenda) and other familar front groups appear at the scene in an effort to influence DG Competition


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts