06.22.17
You Know That the Unitary Patent (UPC) is in Huge Peril When Its Biggest Fans Admit It’s Unlikely to Happen Even Next Year
The long-sought reality distortion field is severely rattled
Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna’s paper on the entryism that helped advance UPC close to ratification
Summary: The tactics of Team UPC turn ugly as they personally target anyone who stands in their way, even a professor/judge who is courageous enough to state the obvious
THE tactics used by Team UPC and the EPO have become uglier. When they don’t simply ignore news which they deem inconvenient they attack those whom they don’t agree with and disseminate lies instead.
Team UPC is actually too polite a term; they deserve a label like the “UPC cult” because this is how they behave; they also eliminate/crush/delete opposing views. This week we are seeing gently-worded personal attacks or attempts to discredit Professor Siegfried Broß for saying the truth about the UPC. It’s stuff like this which reminds us why the UPC complaint was done anonymously. We can envision the sorts of nasty personal attacks which would ensue if the petitioner’s/s’ name/s became widely known and circulated in the German media.
Thankfully, some parts of Team UPC are giving up on the ‘party line’; We at Techrights genuinely think (based on informed analysis) that UPC would very bad for development of software in Europe. British businesses agree, but their collective voice often gets hijacked by a bunch of lawyers who pretend to represent them or their interests. The UPCA was designed by lawyers, it intends to actually harm the industry, and basically enrich these lawyers and their richest clients, which are often not European at all.
IAM ‘magazine’, which earlier this year spread fake news about Spain (repeatedly in fact, in spite of being constantly debunked), had organised pro-UPC events supported by the EPO and funded by the EPO’s PR firm. A change of tune is afoot, however, as this tweet and article from today say that “UPC will not get started in 2017 and don’t bet too much on it happening in 2018 either” (or ever!)
To quote:
It’s been a big political week in the UK. On Monday, David Davis, the government minister overseeing the Brexit process, finally had his first formal meeting with Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator for the EU27, so beginning the discussions around the country’s departure from the European Union. Then, yesterday, Parliament was opened by the Queen following the inconclusive 8th June election which saw the ruling Conservative government unexpectedly lose its overall majority and, therefore, the ability to control the narrative around Brexit and other legislative issues. With the clock ticking down to 29th March 2019 – the date when the UK is scheduled to stop being an EU member state – the country has an emasculated leader and no detailed Brexit strategy. It’s a mess.
Although the dysfunctionality at the heart of the UK political system and the trauma of the divorce from the EU is largely an issue for us Brits, it does have implications for any IP owners that hold assets here or might wish to do so in the future. There are now under two years until Brexit occurs and all the uncertainties around IP that existed on the day after Leave won the referendum continue to exist today – with no sign yet of them being solved. This has major implications for enforcement and for validity of rights granted by the EU IP Office, as well as those that will be granted over the course of the next 20 months.
Dr. Birgit Clark, a former ‘Kat’ whom we found reliable (thus far), has meanwhile taken note of a misleading Battistelli puff piece where his lies to the audience got amplified.
Quite rightly, she tagged it #believeitwhenIseeit and in response to this, Dr. Luke McDonagh wrote: “Major errors in this piece: in fact German ratification awaits a constitutional challenge + Italy&Netherlands both want UK’s #UPC division”
Obviously it was some kind of fake news and Battistelli had lied to a large audience of scientists.
Look what level the EPO has sunk to…
One comment at IP Kat, left earlier today, took note of the “Interview of Pr Bross in Juve.de on UPC hence Karlsruhe” — an interview to which Wouter Pors from Team UPC (he remains one of the chief propagandists for Unitary Patent) responded in another comment by shooting the messenger. Here is his comment:
To my understanding, the complaint relating to the ratification of the UPC Agreement is not based on arguments relating to the EPO Boards of Appeal. This means that the remarks of Prof. Bross with regard to the EPO issues are not relevant for this appeal. Further, I completely fail to see how issues with the EPO Boards of Appeal could affect the UPC, which does meet all the standards for an impartial and independent court.
On the other hand, if issues with regard to the EPO, which are brought forward in other complaints to the German Constitutional Court, would be relevant, that would relate to all European patents that cover Germany, not only to Unitary Patents. But still they would not relate to the UPC.
As the IPKat mentions and I have also understood, prof. Bross is involved in such actions on behalf of an applicant.
Wouter Pors
Bird & Bird The Hague
Pors was not alone in attacking the messenger. There was “damage control” from the other “deplorables” of UPCA, notably Christopher Weber and his employer. Earlier on he wrote about “Our report and commentary on @juveVerlag_MK’s interview with former constitutional judge Broß on the complaint against the #UPC…”
They actually issued a whole post in their official Web site in response to an article. How pathetic is that? Team UPC is currently very afraid of Broß and Mr. Weber wages a battle for his employer (with stakes in the UPC). He also wrote this tweet linking to his employer. They probably try to appease impatient clients to whom the firm gave bad advice regarding the UPC.
Also in Germany we now see this law firm pretending that it’s all just “Postponed”, even though there is no certainty about the UPC at all. Anywhere! The concluding part states:
According to reports published on 11 June 2017, the German Federal Constitutional Court has requested the Federal President of Germany to refrain from signing the law that is necessary to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC). The president has agreed to comply with this request. The president’s signing is the last step required for a law to come into force after it has already passed both legislative chambers in Germany.
At 1:30AM? With just 5% of the politicians present? The whole process has been full of mischief and foul play, nefarious tricks, and one might say political corruption. Now they pay the price for what they wrongly assumed nobody would notice. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA