01.24.18
Team UPC Has Been Reduced to Rubble and Misinformation
Countries with a dozen new patents (more than a thousand times less than Germany) touted as ‘progress’
Summary: A roundup of the latest falsehoods about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and those who are peddling such falsehoods for personal gain
THIS won’t be the first time that we point out misinformation about the UPC. We have been doing that for nearly a decade (even before “UPC” was known as UPC). Today’s post packs in it several new examples. We’ll keep it as short and concise as possible. We can soon just forget about the UPC (altogether). It will be left in the ashtray of history.
IAM
“We can soon just forget about the UPC (altogether).”The PR firm of the EPO had paid IAM to promote the UPC. This wasn’t even a secret. IAM disclosed that in its Web site. We got that. It’s a marriage of convenience and the lobbying is paid for. That IAM spread false rumours about the UPC in Spain last year (repeatedly in fact) is not OK. Why not? Because it constitutes what many people refer to as “fake news” nowadays. Never mind the ethical issues associated with lobbying…
Yesterday IAM wrote: “The Spanish government has reiterated that it will not support Spain’s membership of the UPC. Linguistically and economically – it says – the system would disadvantage Spanish SMEs. But how many Spanish SMEs have any interest in patents?”
The government is correct. IAM is wrong. SMEs would be the targets of litigation. That’s why the UPC is a threat to them. And it doesn’t offer them any benefits as very few even operate outside Spain anyway…
“The PR firm of the EPO had paid IAM to promote the UPC. This wasn’t even a secret.”I responded to IAM by saying that patent extremists, who make a living out of patent system growth (more monopolies irrespective of economic theories/evidence), will always choose to “not understand” this. IAM carried on: “Spain – a country of 46 million people and the EU’s 5th largest economy – saw a 20% decline in patent applications last year, from an already pitifully low 2,849 to 2,285. Does that tell us more about Spain or the importance of patents?”
So IAM is now bashing Spain over the number of patents, conveniently missing the point that patents are a rich countries’ game (protectionism with cost barriers).
IAM being IAM, it will carry on pushing the UPC agenda while bashing those who stand in the way or distorting their views. With EPO money in its purse, maybe that’s just “good business sense”…
Bristows LLP
The UPC is stuck, so Bristows nowadays champions "alternative facts". That says a lot about the lack of integrity of Bristows.
It Looks like Bristows staff is once again putting a mask on ("Kluwer Patent blogger") for UPC lobbying. Watch this post from yesterday and compare it to another (from the same day) by Andrew Bowler. He wants us to believe that Latvia — with barely any EPs (16 in 2016 and 8 in 2015) — matters to UPC and can revive it. “Latvia is the 15th country to ratify,” they say, and “[t]he UK is expected to ratify in the upcoming months.”
“Very few horses are left in this race; Bristows is almost on its own now.”That’s a lie. Jo Johnson left, but they did not even mention it (ever). There’s no indication that ratification is imminent. Bristows seems to have already fabricated statements to that effect.
Notice what they say at the very end: “Latvia has not yet consented to the provisional application of the UPCA or signed the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.”
It does not mention the UK or Germany (how convenient). “It may be worthwhile awaiting the decision of the German Constitutional Court after all,” a UPC booster noted. He too knows that therein (not in Latvia) lies the fate. We might have to wait another 2 years now (for a decision). In the meantime the world forgets about the UPC fairytale (except the UPC lobby) and might not be aware that the UPC push even exists. Very few horses are left in this race; Bristows is almost on its own now.
Support for UPC is Waning
According to JUVE’s editor: “Less to read for German Constitutional Court than expected. According to the Court these institutions have submitted opinions on the UPC case: German Government, EPOorg, EPLIT, EPLAW, BRAK, DAV, und GRUR”
“We expected to see a lot more submissions in support of UPC ratification.”And in German: “Nicht viel, aber wenigstens eine kleine Information. Laut BVerfG haben diese Institutionen eine Stellungnahme zur UPC-Beschwerde eingereicht: Bundesregierung, @EPOorg, BRAK, DAV, EPLIT, EPLAW und GRUR. Weniger zu lesen für Karlsruhe als gedacht: 7 statt 27 Gutachten”
We expected to see a lot more submissions in support of UPC ratifications. The above (at least to us) suggests that fewer bodies with a UPC stake even bothered. It’s like they already gave up. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA