THE UPC 'master plan' is more or less stuck, as we noted in our previous post, and it may be the fault of the EPO. If the notion of justice is so poor/nonexistent inside the EPO, how can it be expected to reliably extend everywhere in Europe? In the USPTO, by contrast, the notion of justice seems to be improving, as we shall show in future articles.

There has been a lot of misinterpretation of the words from Michel Barnier, a longtime French proponent of the UPC. We wrote about it yesterday and a short while afterwards (also on Saturday) IAM wrote about that same Science|Business article: "It is not correct to say that only EU member states can bring cases to the UPC. In fact, it is nonsense."

"If the notion of justice is so poor/nonexistent inside the EPO, how can it be expected to reliably extend everywhere in Europe?"IAM is a UPC proponent. Another UPC proponent, one who used to promote the UPC at public events and at IP Kat, replied: "Will the general media ever get this right?"

IAM told him: "This is not even general media. Science Business really should know better."

I then weighed in by saying that "with "media partner" money in the mix (Battistelli/EPO), factual reporting is not a priority. Millions per annum at stake for media alone."

The EPO basically corrupted a lot of the media (paying money to major publications like the Financial Times), which either does not cover news or simply produces puff pieces/fluff for Battistelli. Some of these pieces are UPC advocacy that's totally disconnected from facts. Not just selective bias...

"The EPO basically corrupted a lot of the media (paying money to major publications like the Financial Times), which either does not cover news or simply produces puff pieces/fluff for Battistelli."A bunch of readers got in touch this weekend and reminded us of "UPC Coverage in the UK press in February 2017," saying that it "may be of interest..."

"We're not sure whether TechRights already covered this so were are forwarding it just in case you missed it," the readers said. It's mainly about this article -- "An article critical of UPC ratification plans [that] appeared in the Daily Express in February," our readers explained.

What our readers found interesting was IAM's response to it, arguing that "The Daily Express article was commented on by IAM in a pro-UPC puff piece which appeared soon afterwards."

"The EPO supported IAM in setting up pro-UPC events, funded by the EPO's PR firm (subsidised to the tune of over 1 million Euros per year at the time)."We've covered all the above at the time. IAM's attitude towards the UPC is well documents. The EPO supported IAM in setting up pro-UPC events, funded by the EPO's PR firm (subsidised to the tune of over 1 million Euros per year at the time).

"Since then the UK press seems to have gone quiet on the issue," our readers noted. Yes, just like in Germany...

Mr. Carswell, an independent politician who opposes the UPC, now follows me in Twitter. He too has been rather quiet on the issue since then.

We can only speculate about the passivity of the opposition/resistance, but basically, law firms (notably Team UPC, CIPA etc.) dominate all the coverage, directly or indirectly. Facts seem not to matter anymore. ⬆