04.30.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Unified Patent Propaganda Courtesy of a Cabal of Firms That Constructed the UPC
From IAM’s Web site, which promotes the UPC
Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC), a proposed patent litigation system which would harm European industry for the benefit of law firms and their largest clients (abroad), is only being boosted by few selfish and patently dishonest stakeholders, including/enjoying the EPO's massive PR/lobbying budget (FTI Consulting)
THE UPC is not happening. It’s definitely not happening in the UK, which means that the whole thing as it stands cannot become a reality (Germany won't ratify). But with lobbying muscle, Team UPC believes, anything can be accomplished, even the impossible. By lying to politicians or intentionally misleading them about the law, Team UPC hopes they can be compelled to sign truly ridiculous things. Defiance of the law can be tolerated when the ends supposedly justify the means?
“By lying to politicians or intentionally misleading them about the law, Team UPC hopes they can be compelled to sign truly ridiculous things.”The “UPC [is] Delayed”, wrote the patent microcosm in Cologne, Germany. But why just “delayed”? For the time being it’s dead and there is no redemption. If the “unitary” effect (or patent) cannot happen in the UK, then they need to rewrite the whole thing, maybe even abandon it altogether. Team UPC knows that it needs to be rewritten, then rebranded. It’s already working on it. To be fair, the claim comes from “IP Fridays” which titled its latest episode “Interview with Jeannie Hill – SEO For Brand Owners – UPC Delayed – Important FCJ Decision Regarding Nullity Actions” and not too shockingly the claims of “delay” come from the patent microcosm. They still try hard to maintain the illusion of inevitability. There are deep vested interests.
“It’s like those apathetic politicians who outright dismissed the possibility of Brexit back in 2015.”Kingsley Egbuonu, writing for Managing IP from London, maintains the “progress report” headline in his periodic writings about the UPC. To him (like others inside the echo chamber), the very concept of UPC failing is unthinkable. It’s like those apathetic politicians who outright dismissed the possibility of Brexit back in 2015. Their assumptions say a lot about their smugness and confidence. This led them and many others to a total catastrophe.
The other day Managing IP mentioned the petition against UPC in the UK, whereupon I challenged their ridiculing tone. “We’re publicising the petition,” they told me. “And we’re not linked to Battistelli or lobbyists for UPC.” Well, they did a lot of puff pieces for and about Battistelli; they also helped organise many UPC echo chambers (we wrote about these many times). “Your coverage of the UPC never really explained the pitfalls of it,” I told them. “Never that I can recall…”
“Previously, UPC events from IAM were funded by the EPO’s PR firm and supported explicitly by the EPO.”They gave a list of articles from 2011 and 2014 that mentioned issues with the UPC. I then asked them: “What happened after that? Not seen any recently. All the recent ones are more like cheerleading dressed up as journalism. Not even the BoA/AMBA was allowed to speak about these matters; only Battistelli — repeatedly even.”
“Once UPC was agreed,” they responded. “we made a decision to focus on looking at practical issues, rather than re-hashing old arguments about its merits…”
I clarified that UPC was “agreed among few special interests in echo chamber-like events, not the public…”
“However,” they added, “we have also given space to voices critical of UPC & Unitary Patent, eg in Spain & Poland http://www.managingip.com/Article/3501282/Unitary-Patent-and-UPC-the-state-of-play.html …”
“We worry that a lot of the pro-UPC voices these days are disguised as journalists (or as “bloggers”) but are actually little more than self-serving lobbyists.”“It’s true that we have sought interviews with AMBA (not specifically on UPC),” they then said, “and permission was refused by the EPO president.” We have highlighted this separately because we deemed it very important. It’s rather troubling that Battistelli is now controlling the media like this. It serves to also demonstrate that Battistelli lies when he claims that BoA (or AMBA) have independence. He wants them redundant and muzzled at the same time.
“Well,” Managing IP concluded, “we do what we think is most appropriate & useful for our readers. Can’t speak for others.”
Well, the readers are the patent microcosm, so it’s not particularly shocking that there is pro-UPC bias there.
“Just because some false reports (factually incorrect) about it have emerged there recently (citing/quoting Team UPC) doesn’t mean it will become true…”Meanwhile, over at IAM (EPO-connected), it is made apparent that UPC jingoism continues to spread. “Another major development that could alter the risk landscape for Korean companies,” they wrote, is “the Unitary Patent and UPC system in Europe #IPBCKorea pic.twitter.com/epvcuMyzh1″ (that’s a photo right there).
The UPC isn’t happening as they claimed in this IAM event in Korea (Team Battistelli recently lied about it in Korea). Previously, UPC events from IAM were funded by the EPO's PR firm and supported explicitly by the EPO.
We worry that a lot of the pro-UPC voices these days are disguised as journalists (or as "bloggers") but are actually little more than self-serving lobbyists. It leads to somewhat of a bubble. A couple of days ago someone wrote: “Let’s hope that the CJEU does not act like this in references from the UPC. ”
“UPC is disturbing not just because of its intended effects on the economy but also its corrupting effect on media, politicians, and so on.”But the UPC isn’t happening, partly because of the CJEU. What’s so hard to grasp here? Here is Team UPC trying to shift attention from the deal-breaking UK and instead focus on the Isle of Man again, citing the same erroneous ‘report’ as before. Just because some false reports (factually incorrect) about it have emerged there recently (citing/quoting Team UPC) doesn’t mean it will become true, as we noted the other day. It’s self-referential.
UPC is disturbing not just because of its intended effects on the economy but also its corrupting effect on media, politicians, and so on. Firms like Bristows, for instance, seem to be manufacturing/relaying non-existent quotes and based on this new report from Managing IP, lies pay off because “UK IP firm Bristows has hired a team of nine IP practitioners from London rival Berwin Leighton Paisner.”
“…when it comes to UPC, we have learned, lies pay.”Do these new employees understand that their new employer is full of liars? They’re antidemocratic. They mislead. They cheat. How can they get away with it?
Well, when it comes to UPC, we have learned, lies pay. Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, said: “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
We’re here to correct that as no matter how many times Team UPC is told that it’s wrong, it will nonchalantly continue with the same lies, e.g. about SMEs. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA