06.13.17

A Massive Proponent of UPC, CIPA, Enters IP Kat, as Readers Call Out Stacked UPC ‘Panels’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The blog of Jeremy Phillips seems to have become more like a think tank after his retirement

Stephen Jones of CIPASummary: On matters of patents, IP Kat continues moving to the right (patent maximalism, acceptance of Battistelli’s regime, UPC bubble and so on) and commentary to the contrary is not being accepted

THE previous post spoke of the latest censorship by the 'Kats', who rarely if ever write something truthful or objective about the UPC. It often seems like the blog became an EPO megaphone after the EPO had threatened/sanctioned it. It’s very important that people out there can discern/recognise UPC boosters (sometimes paid for it) as they tend to dominate the discussion. They use their money or their ‘weight’ to set up bogus forums (at times funded by EPO money) and infiltrate the media. James Nurton from Managing IP, for example, having spoken to Battistelli several times and also helped organise pro-UPC events, continues to prop up the illusion/delusion of UPC inevitability. “Patent practitioners will soon be using the UPC case management system,” he wrote.

Bull****.

“Judging by the comments, Jeremy Phillips is aware of this and appears to have no problem with this.”We are sad to see that statements such as these — the wishful thinking of Team UPC — continue to percolate onto sites which proclaim to be “news” sites. Even so-called ‘blogs’ have turned into little beyond marketing. Kluwer Patent Blog has begun publishing some criticisms of the EPO (usually from Thorsten Bausch, who is a brave man), whereas IP Kat gets more extreme over time. Adding to the toxicity from Bristow, IP Kat now takes even people from CIPA (another massive booster of the UPC). It won’t end well. Stephen Jones has just been introduced as “current VP of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA).” These are the people who lobby our politicians hardest for the UPC, often misleading them, pressuring them, and lying to journalists. We could think of expletives to add to this paragraph, but to keep it polite, CIPA is perhaps the worst messenger on this topic — even worse than Bristows!

So we know what to expect. Judging by the comments, Jeremy Phillips is aware of this and appears to have no problem with this. It’s worth noting that Darren Smyth is leaving the blog after exploiting that blog for his own UPC agenda (marketing).

Thankfully, people in the comments are not exactly tolerating the bias. The other day someone wrote that it’s “amazing to see how wishful thinking is acting” in UPC propaganda (this thread was covered here before). Here is the comment in full:

It is amazing to see how wishful thinking is acting. I fully agree with proof of the pudding.

You may read Opinion 1/09 anyway you like, but it does not say that non-EU members can be part of the UPCA. The possibility to refer questions to the CJEU is and stays reserved to member states of the EU. Do you think the CJEU will simply accept referrals to it by any court in a non-member state of the EU?

If this would be possible, we would have heard about it, and EPLA would have been adapted to provide for this possibility.

What other safeguards would be needed, beside at least the ability to refer questions to the CJEU? What about enforcement? Lugano yes, but.

Looking at another thread (in the second part), the UPC ‘panel’ that got stacked by EPO and Bristows et al is recognised for what it really is. It’s not a debate but just lobbying. The coverage from IP Kat refrains from saying it, but the comments basically state the obvious about “Bristows law firm [which is] the sometimes almost radical pro-UPC [with] activities of which are meanwhile notorious…”

Here is the full comment:

How convenient to hold such discussions exclusively amongst pro-UPC people the results of which can afterwards be sold to the general public as constituting some kind of ‘general bottom line understanding’.

It is worth noting the following with regard to both parts of this article:

Tim Frain is sitting on the UPC Expert Panel (www.unified-patent-court.org/news/chairman-invites-new-expert-panel-advise-preparatory-committee) – what do you expect to hear from him?

Michael Froehlich is an EPO employee – again: what do you expect to hear from him?

Alan Johnson is a partner at the Bristows law firm the sometimes almost radical pro-UPC activities of which are meanwhile notorious – so: as before.

Against this background, it does not come as a surprise that this post is conveniently presenting a number of very controversial questions in a manner as if reliable answers to them not only existed, but were even being supported by a majority and, of course, always in the sense of the UPC proponents! Maybe people without expertise in this field will fall victim to such obvious manipulation. All those with a deeper understanding of the situation and of the highly complex legal and political situation can only shake their heads about such clumsy and a little naive attempts of pro-UPC marketing.

Someone then points out: “Perhaps those with opposing views will come out under their cloak of anonymity and set out their opposition to these points with references to the UPCA articles, Opinion 1/09 and constitutional European law for all to discuss and debate. Seems a quick solution to some of the complaints – legitimate and otherwise – raised about the UPC debate.”

The above panel attempted to convince people that the UPC was just about to happen, but as the following comment clarified, the UPC Agreement remains incompatible with Article 50 being invoked and the UK leaving the EU:

Tim – many thanks for your comments. With respect, however, I think that you are missing the main point here.

Perhaps I can best illustrate that point by posing the following question: what is the legal basis for the ability of the UPC to refer questions to the CJEU?

The answer, of course, is that the UPC is a court that forms part of the national legal order of the EU Member States. Being such a (national) court would allow the UPC to make references under the provisions of Article 267 TFEU.

This explains why Article 21 of the UPC Agreement reads as follows:
“As a court common to the Contracting Member States and as part of their judicial system, the Court shall cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of Union law, as any national court, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU in particular. Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the Court”.

Now, I do not think that it is impossible that there might be other ways in which the UPC could be granted authority to refer questions to the CJEU – perhaps even if the Member States of the UPC Agreement include non-EU countries. However, as things currently stand, Article 267 TFEU is the sole basis on which the UPC could refer such questions. Thus, if the UPC is not actually “part of the national legal order” of EU Member States, then that removes the sole basis upon which it can make a reference.

And the next comment said:

When one sees the difficulties in dealing with trademarks, what could it be if UK would quickly ratify the UPC to exit the agreement at the end of Brexit.

All those who claim that UK could stay in the UPC, seem to take they wish for reality.

In summary, nowadays the ‘Kats’ are basically people with vested interests in the UPC, citing or promoting views of other people with vested interests in the UPC while selectively deleting comments they don’t want anyone to see. What does that make IP Kat?

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

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. InteLeaks – Part XXX: Harbor Research's Pseudo-scientific 'Research' for Intel, Bizarrely Suggesting a Microsoft Partnership for a Domain Largely Controlled or Dominated by Linux

    The full document that Intel paid for and in turn used to justify cracking down on Free software (obliterating Free software-based workflows inside Intel), instead outsourcing all sorts of things to proprietary software traps of Microsoft



  2. Chromium and Chrome Are Not Free Software But an Example of Microsoft-Fashioned Openwashing Tactics

    It's time to reject Google's Web monopoly (shared with other companies but still an oligopoly); removing its Web browser would be a good start



  3. Links 23/1/2021: Chromium Pains and New Debian Maintainers

    Links for the day



  4. InteLeaks – Part XXIX: Harbor Research Did Not Produce a Study But an Elaborate Hoax for Intel, Suggesting Microsoft Partnership and Outsourcing Based on Zero Evidence and No Solid Rationale

    The pseudo-scientific ‘report’ from Harbor Research is more of the same nonsense we’ve grown accustomed to; unethical if not rogue firms are being paid to lie — or to perpetuate falsehoods which someone stands to gain from



  5. Video: The State of Communities Surrounding GNU/Linux Distributions

    A discussion about the state of volunteer efforts going into the development, maintenance (in the 'maintainership' sense) and support/advocacy of GNU/Linux distros



  6. IRC Proceedings: Friday, January 22, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, January 22, 2021



  7. InteLeaks – Part XXVIII: Intel Served Report From Microsoft Boosters, Who Provide No Actual Evidence and No Science to Back Their Supposed 'Findings'

    Findings and recommendations from Harbor 'Research' aren't based on any scientific methods, just perceived loyalty, branding, and a bunch of unsourced quotes (from unnamed people with ridiculous job titles like a soup of buzzwords)



  8. Erosion of Communities, Ascent of Corporate-Industrial Fake Communities

    Despite the attempts to manipulate/trick developers (and sometimes users) into becoming unpaid workforce of for-profit companies, there's an exodus back to real communities, which aren't subjected to the fury of wealthy shareholders who utterly dislike or simply don't care for software freedom



  9. The Corporate 'Left' and the Open Source Pseudo 'Movement'

    President Biden may not be as bad as his predecessor, but that hardly means very much; software freedom is still threatened, along with many other things



  10. Links 22/1/2021: pfSense Plus, Endless OS Foundation, and Many Laptops With GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  11. The Linux Foundation is Trying to Obscure Racism Using Microsoft-Inspired Tactics (Vouchers Disguised as Actual Money)

    The Linux Foundation and its PR stunts don’t help combat racism; one might argue that the Foundation is leveraging racism, which prevails in the US, to paint itself as benevolent and caring (offering immaterial things and self-serving press releases)



  12. InteLeaks – Part XXVII: 'Pulling a Nokia' on Intel (Outsourcing to Microsoft)

    The recommendation of an Intel marriage with Microsoft (even in units that deal mostly with Linux) is an insulting slap across the face of developers employed there; we take a look at recommendations made to IoTG (Intel) by a firm with Microsoft orientation



  13. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 21, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 21, 2021



  14. InteLeaks – Part XXVI: Harbor Research is Horrible 'Research', Lacking Actual Technical Background

    Having looked at the members of staff of Harbor Research (individually), it seems clearer now why they have an affinity for Microsoft and why they're directing Intel to liaise with Microsoft and become a prisoner of Microsoft (even in areas where Microsoft is increasingly irrelevant)



  15. Links 21/1/2021: Raspberry Pi Pico, Ubuntu 21.04 Picks GNOME 3.38, KDE Plasma 5.21 Beta

    Links for the day



  16. How a Newly Inaugurated President Biden Can Advance Software Freedom (If He Actually Wishes to Do So)

    Techrights has 'Four Suggestions' to President Biden, the 46th 'front end' of American plutocracy



  17. InteLeaks – Part XXV: Intel's Brain Drain Leads to Unusual Measures

    As the company once known as 'chipzilla' loses its relevance and dominance in the market it's reaching out to retired people, trying to get them back onboard



  18. Hey Hi (AI) is Just a Trojan Horse for Illegal Software Patents, According to EPO Management and Litigation Firms It's in Bed With

    The longtime pushers or the lobby of patent profiteers just carry on pushing for software patents, nowadays latching onto the inane and unwarranted media hype around Hey Hi (AI) — a hype wave that was co-opted by EPO management to grant unlawful patents



  19. The Central Staff Representatives (CSC) of the EPO Are Petitioning to End the Assault on EPO Staff

    The EPO, just one month after the staff went on strike, is about to receive a compelling petition to stop the assault on EPO staff



  20. InteLeaks – Part XXIV: Love for Microsoft, Not for Free Software or Whatever Replaces Microsoft

    Intel is basing its big decisions on buzzwords and firms that master buzzwords; it's sad that instead of listening to Intel's own (in-house) engineers it's relying on a bunch of clowns who push 'Clown Computing' and 'apps' and 'UX'...



  21. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 20, 2021



  22. Links 21/1/2021: Google Tightens the Screws on Chromium, VideoLAN VLC 3.0.12

    Links for the day



  23. IBM Panics and Resorts to 'Customer Retention' Tactics With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)

    IBM 'frees' RHEL but with limitations that can restrict growth of small companies (or subject them to financial barriers, originally unforeseen)



  24. Recent Techrights Articles About President Joe Biden

    Instead of writing yet more stuff about the latest US president, let's look back at what we wrote in recent weeks/months



  25. Links 20/1/2021: LibreOffice 7.1 RC2 and the RHEL Contingency

    Links for the day



  26. InteLeaks – Part XXIII: Intel Paying for Bogus 'Research' 'Insights' Which Merely Seek to Justify Outsourcing to Microsoft and Imposing Microsoft's Proprietary Software on Free Software Developers

    Intel's preference for Microsoft monopoly (an imposed/top-down decision) was seemingly certified by so-called 'consultants' and 'analysts' from the outside rather than the inside, basically manufacturing a false perception of consent after managers had already made up their minds



  27. Suppressed Facts of the Free Software Movement and Its Community of Volunteers – Part V: How FSF Secrecy Ended Up Insulting People, Alienating Trans Developers

    Having just uploaded this introductory video, we delve into the backstory or the real reason the FSF sank into somewhat of a crisis with the trans community almost half a decade ago



  28. InteLeaks – Part XXII: Bubbles and Buzzwords, No Substance at Intel's Internet of Things (IoT) Group (IOTG)

    The video above is continuation of the previous part about a document full of superficial buzzwords (not technical jargon anywhere), in effect recommending to managers that they blindly follow trends and cargo cults (such as Clown Computing) and not what’s most suitable for technical excellence



  29. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 19, 2021



  30. Links 20/1/2021: WireGuard for pfSense and New US President

    Links for the day


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

Recent Posts