02.14.18
Gemini version available ♊︎No, Britain is Not Ratifying ‘Unitary’ Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow’s Outcome)
This — to put it quite bluntly — is what the ‘mainstream’ habitually labels “fake news”
Summary: Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others’), the UPC isn’t happening and isn’t coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)
THE EPO will never see the UPC. It would take a miracle and it’s a sure thing that Battistelli will have failed to see it materialising, except perhaps outside the EPO (some time in the very distant future, maybe under a different name). Do not be misled by Team UPC’s hype. They’re lobbying; they’re attempting to shape perception in order to influence the outcome. They have done this for nearly a decade. We know their tricks and we know who they are.
“They’re lobbying; they’re attempting to shape perception in order to influence the outcome. They have done this for nearly a decade. We know their tricks and we know who they are.”Earlier today, in a paid self-promotional piece at IAM, Markus Herzog from Weickmann & Weickmann PartmbB insinuated that EPO scandals caused the demise of UPC (see last paragraph) or at least contributed to that.
To quote some of the closing words (coming from a UPC proponent):
While the EPO’s Administrative Council, in an attempt to avoid a diplomatic conference, has endeavoured to strengthen the independence of the Boards of Appeal by amending the implementing regulations, certain aspects may still support Bross’s position and strengthen the constitutional complaint.
However, the situation is less clear cut than the case decided by the Federal Administrative Court in 1959. Whether the independence of the Boards of Appeal prompted the Federal Constitutional Court to request that Steinmeier delay the signature of the UPC Agreement remains unclear.
This ‘article’ (more like advert) is titled “Constitutional complaint against UPC Agreement”; this, at the moment, is the primary impediment to UPC and it can take years just to decide the merit of the complaint (at the moment they bicker about admissibility and some UPC zealots resort to ad hominem attacks against the complainant).
Tomorrow we’ll likely to see the Brits kicking the UPC down the road (yet again). Team UPC is busy with its jingoism [1, 2], but these people too acknowledge that there are barriers which only extremists like Bristows would gladly deny.
“Tomorrow we’ll likely to see the Brits kicking the UPC down the road (yet again). Team UPC is busy with its jingoism, but these people too acknowledge that there are barriers which only extremists like Bristows would gladly deny.”As a reminder, the UPC would be an attack on British SMEs and we have contacted Sam Gyimah about that on numerous occasions (he’s new at the job and we want to ensure he’s aware). A week ago the British government said (along with a video): “Intellectual Property Minister @SamGyimah reflects on the 400th anniversary of the British Patent and why the govt is committed to supporting R&D to pave the way for new inventions through the #IndustrialStrategy #GREATforImagination”
Watch the responses. David Pearce (former ‘Kat’) wrote: “Oh dear Sam. You need to get your advisors at the @The_IPO to stop lying to you, and learn the difference between a patent and an application.”
“The government doesn’t support enough sustainable R&D,” said another comment. “Design us something that isn’t going to destroy our echo-systems…” [sic]
The next comment said: “As someone who runs a highly innovative small software company, I can tell you that patents are the biggest risk to our survival. If you want to encourage innovation in software, get rid of software patents.”
Indeed.
“Tomorrow we’ll likely to see the Brits kicking the UPC down the road (yet again).”The only nuisance comment comes from Lucy, his predecessor (not direct predecessor) who still meddles and mentions the EPO again, having done photo ops with Battistelli in the short period of time she held Gyimah’s position and made crazy promises. She wrote: “Sam Very glad to see you prioritising #patents & #IntellectualProperty So important with much of our economy & trade now underpinned by IP @The_IPO @EPOorg”
Why on Earth did she even bring up the EPO?!
The FFII’s President responded to her with “an elephant in a porcelain shop, that’s what the patent system looks like nowadays. Plus it’s based on a massive lie, market failure was never demonstrated, not even in the pharma sector.”
“Let’s see if Bristows will spin, lie, or keep silent about the outcome (like he did the last time Britain kicked UPC out of the preset agenda).”I too responded to her with “[w]hat quality of patents? Did you have an experience getting sued by patent trolls? Your promotion of UPC would lead to exactly that. Speak to your constituents, not patent law firms that profit from litigation.”
In a comment here, even IAM’s Joff Wild said that the “UPC’s fate will be decided in Germany, not the UK.”
There would be mayhem if Lucy got her way (promise fulfilled) tomorrow, but we strongly doubt that can happen. UPC is simply not compatible with Brexit and the government has more pressing things to weigh on (than conceding control to a European court system). Let’s see if Bristows will spin, lie, or keep silent about the outcome (like he did the last time Britain kicked UPC out of the preset agenda). █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA