01.13.18
Late on a Friday is a Good Time to Spread Misinformation About Unified Patent Court (UPC) Without Being Challenged
Shoot first, ask questions later (then run and hide)
Summary: The new document from Winfried Tilmann et al (Team UPC) is being defended by Team UPC not only by publicly attacking UPC critics (like the complainant) but also blogs critical of the UPC
OPEN debates or communications are generally essential. Democracy necessitates those. So it’s a shame that in multiple blogs other than its own Bristows is deleting comments about the UPC (its own blog does not allow comments at all). Such is the nature of Team UPC; it’s insular, leaning towards censorship, and cryptic/secretive. Because if only the public knew what it was really up to…
“Such is the nature of Team UPC; it’s insular, leaning towards censorship, and cryptic/secretive.”A couple of days ago we wrote about German UPC proceedings and we beat Team UPC to it, owing to pointers/tips from readers. This seems to have really upset Team UPC, which wanted to control the narrative of this release and treat a bunch of self-serving barristers as neutral or independent domain experts. Some people from Team UPC tried to heckle me publicly. They even use the word “conspiracy” (it’s not a word that I used). Maybe they try to associate truths about the UPC with “conspiracy theory” in order to discredit those truths. Whatever it is, all we’ve said was factual. They did not rebut a single argument. They don’t care that the UPC is neither desirable… nor legal… nor constitutional. All they care about is what fattens their wallet. Some were throwing personal attacks at me and calling “ad hominem” my blog post that does not name anyone but Tillman (very briefly at the top). What are these people even hoping to accomplish? A few weeks ago we noted that they had already begun personal attacks on the complainant himself; all this while moaning that he was keeping his identity secret for a number of months (who can blame him, especially gives those personal attacks he must have foreseen)?
We urge readers to check this whole ‘debate’ from start to finish; it’s Team UPC which operates like some sort of cult in secret events and funding that can sometimes be traced back to the EPO. It’s them who habitually dish/throw insults at those who stand in their way.
“We urge readers to check this whole ‘debate’ from start to finish; it’s Team UPC which operates like some sort of cult in secret events and funding that can sometimes be traced back to the EPO.”One of them has just published this blog post for a firm that stands to benefit from the UPC and pushes for it not only in the UK but also in other countries. And as usual, late on a Friday (sometimes Saturday), such pro-UPC pieces are published, hoping for lack of comment (i.e. challenge) altogether until Monday (or Monday moderation). They seem to have begun publishing these anonymously as they don't wish to be held accountable for misinformation. It probably won’t be long (expect Monday morning) before some rebuttal is posted in the comments (3 days after the original was posted, i.e. no audience to witness the comment/s).
Here we have a copy, posted by a UPC proponent and likely chosen by Bristows (“Kluwer Patent Blogger”) as it suited the agenda, lobbying for his firm/his pockets at Europe’s expense. A day later, still no comment, which is unusual except when there’s pro-UPC stuff during the weekend (all comments automatically go through moderation). It says this: “The constitutional complaint which was filed last year against German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, has been shrouded in secrecy. The complaint has not been published, nor the observations about the case, which the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) requested from goverment and a series of other organizations. Professor Winfried Tilmann gave his personal view on this blog and two days ago, The German Bar Association published its findings (co-authored by Tilmann) as well. Dr Alex Robinson, associate at Dehns, wrote an article about the developments, which Kluwer IP Law is happy to republish here as a guest post.”
“Their presence, which depends on money flow, is a tax on real (operating/producing) firms in Europe.”It is always amusing to see Team UPC attempting to accuse the complainant of secrecy; it’s an old strategy wherein one attributes (im)moral equivalence to one’s opposition in order to distract — sometimes pro-actively — from one’s own. It’s quite frankly laughable.
It’s not hard to imagine who promotes the above document and post. It’s promoted by Weber , “UPC tracker” (Thomas Adam, “Patent litigation aficionado,” by his very own bio of himself) and other UPC pushers; and by the way, to simply name people is not unethical; we are attempting to show that UPC advocacy comes from the same heavily-vested cabal that stands to benefit from UPC and played a role in creating it for self-enrichment. Many are litigation firms. If the UPC’s demise leads to many layoffs in such firms, then good riddance. Their presence, which depends on money flow, is a tax on real (operating/producing) firms in Europe. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA