EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.09.18

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Not Happening, But Kluwer Patent Blog Pretends It’s Already in Force

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As if the only question now is who governs it

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
“…the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true” –Sociologist Robert K. Merton on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Summary: The truly delusional writings, not to mention intentionally dishonest creed, show that Team UPC is a threat to truth itself, not just to the European economy

THE EPO scandals are no longer being covered — let alone mentioned — in so-called ‘IP’ blogs. It’s seen by them as “not beneficial”; they’d rather just sweep EPO examiners under a rug somewhere.

“Looking at some of the comments that made it through the censorship, it seems clear that even Kluwer Patent Blog contributors (Thorsten Bausch at least) found the article misleading.”“Limiting your European Patent nationally” was the title of this blog post from Kluwer Patent Blog yesterday. It was the first blog post in a long time. It was published along with another propaganda piece about the UPC. It was authored anonymously, but it certainly looks like the author was Bristows cloaked as "Kluwer Patent blogger". As usual, comments are being ‘sanitised’ there, so a real discussion cannot be made visible. One must assume that dissent gets deleted to protect the propaganda. Maximalists are happy about it (this is being promoted via patent maximalists). Team UPC keeps pretending that no barriers exist after that awful IAM 'interview' (widely criticised around the Web). Notice the loaded headline which makes the reader assume that Unitary Patent is in force and what remains to be decided is under whose wing. The headline is merely a quote/quote-mining: “EU should bring Unitary Patent system under its control” (quoting a “former chief economist of the EPO”).

Here’s a little portion:

Still, even if the German complaint is rejected and the Unitary Patent system enters into force at the end of 2018 or in 2019, van Pottelsberghe doesn’t expect too much of an impact on innovation – which is in principle what patents are all about.

One UPC booster said:

Which wd be the end of any UK #UPC participation: „[T]his single layered system should be much more an EU endeavour and not in the hands of a ‘dreadfully independent institution composed of 38 stakeholders of member states’, accdg to van Pottelsberghe.“

A phrase such as “end of any UK UPC participation” is misleading for two reasons; first of all, the UK never participated and secondly the UPC never existed and probably will never exist. We recently wrote a lot about why Britain can never participate in anything like this:

Meanwhile, this new press release came out [1, 2]. This came out in the UK, advertising a “2 Day Conference for Senior Patent Administrators (London, United Kingdom – September 27-28, 2018)” and saying the following: “It will help you understand how recent changes at the EPO, WIPO, USPTO and the Unitary Patent Court will impact your role.”

Will?

Putting aside the fact that the UK cannot participate, the UPC isn’t happening. This merely perpetuates a falsehood. Further down, under day two, it says there’s a 12.45 session on “The Unified Patent Court”.

Maybe they believe that if they carry on pretending that the UPC is just about to start, then it will actually happen.

Looking at some of the comments that made it through the censorship, it seems clear that even Kluwer Patent Blog contributors (Thorsten Bausch at least) found the article misleading.

Thorsten Bausch wrote:

Thank you for collecting this interesting opinion. My only comment is that I found the headline slightly confusing. What I understood Prof. van Pottelsberghe to suggest is not so much that the EU should bring the Unitary Patent system under its control – he argues rather, and rightly in my view, that the EU should bring the EPO (European Patent Office) more under its control. That, he argues, would enable the EPO to serve and be part of the EU’s industrial policy, for the sake of European consumers, universities and entrepreneurs.

I agree with him now, but must admit that there were times in the past when I was of a different opinion and thought it is actually a good idea to have a Patent Office that is outside the EU and not committed to serve its industrial policy or other political agendas of the day. I saw it as a great chance to achieve European unification and harmonisation beyond political borders and even including countries having quite different political systems. Which it has been and still is. Clearly, if the EU brings the EPO more under its control, this may serve to exclude non-EU countries, at least in the long run.

However, the current status of the EPO as an international organisation that enjoys immunity, but is not supervised effectively and lacks any effective integration in a judicial system that safeguards elementary human rights and the rule of law is highly problematic and probably not sustainable in the long term future. Were the EPO to become an organ of the EU, this would definitely change for the better.

In any case, it is time to re-think the entire European Patent Organization, in my view.

An earlier comment said this:

I can agree that the advent of the UP system would “make the patent system in Europe quite complex”. I can also agree that “the European Commission should find a way to bring the EPO more under its control”. However, I believe that Mr van Pottelsberghe has seriously underestimated the complexities on both of these points.

For example, the “international” status of the EPO has so far enabled the management of the organisation to effectively ignore even basic principles under human rights laws (such as the right to a fair trial or to COLLECTIVE bargaining). Under these circumstances, and given the principle of supremacy of EU law (INCLUDING the Charter of Fundamental Rights), how could it be possible for the Commission to “control” the EPO in any way?

On the other hand, the advent of the UP system promises to bring into effect a system in which post-grant “game-playing” by patentees can not only change the forum in which a patent is litigated but can also change the law of infringement that is applied (and hence change the outcome of the litigation). Such a system is not just “complex”, it is absurd. It also dispatches the concept of legal certainty to the dustbin of history.

I have never seen any such complexities even acknowledged (let alone taken into account) in connection with a “study” on the possible benefits of the UP system. So you will have to forgive me if I am more than a little cynical about the chances of that system doing anything other than providing an additional advantage to those patentees having the deepest pockets (who will be best placed to take maximum advantage of the insane levels of complexity and uncertainty that are inherent in the system).

A person who used to comment a lot in IP Kat (barely did lately) said:

Ah, the European patent “system”! A bit like the famous old Punch curate’s egg, eh? “Good in parts”.

Which part is good? Why the EPC and the Established Caselaw of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, of course. This is a roadmap for everything to do with eligibility, patentability and validity of patents, and it provides hugely more legal certainty on all of these matters than anywhere else in the world. It is a benchmark for national Supreme Courts all over the world, something Europe should be very proud of and something industry in Europe should be very grateful for.

How did this come about? Some might suggest that it is precisely because the EPC and the EPO’s established caselaw has been conceived, written and implemented free from political influence and control. rather, the EPC and the EPO simply strive to dispense justice and fairness between i) patent-owners and ii) their competitors constrained by the patents the EPO issues. Reasonable certainty for the public, yet a fair scope of protection for inventors. Good patents enforceable, bad patents struck down.

So I’m not convinced that putting the EPO under more political control is in every respect a good thing.

But I’m with Thorsten and others that it would be a good thing for the basic rights of employees at the EPO.

In the end, these two issues are, for me, very important, but I’m doubtful how much they matter, for Professor Bruno van Pottelsberghe.

The above, from MaxDrei, shows that Kluwer Patent Blog fails to convince even its own readers of what it is trying to say about UPC. Maybe the target audience is some gullible politicians.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/1/2020: Mir 1.7 and GNU Guile 3.0.0

    Links for the day



  2. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, January 16, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, January 16, 2020



  3. Links 16/1/2020: Mozilla Layoffs, PinePhone Braveheart Shipping, KDE Plasma 5.18 LTS Reaches Beta

    Links for the day



  4. Microsoft is a Market Leader in Lying and Corruption

    Microsoft is working hard to describe itself as the exact opposite of what it is and what it has been; ‘Internet rot’ helps a lot with this agenda, not to mention control of the media (the narrative)



  5. The European Patent Organisation Continues to 'Piss All Over' Separation of Powers

    The EPO continues to scatter invalid patents (IPs) that are European Patents (EPs) all over Europe and nobody can stop this, not even the judges of the EPO because they lack independence (by their very own admission)



  6. Zealots of Team UPC (Patent Litigation) Now Attacking the Courts and the Judges, Removing Their Mask on the Face of Things...

    The tactics of Team UPC aren't changing, only the shamelessness associated with these tactics is changing (because it looks like the end of days to them)



  7. Microsoft Now Uses or Leverages Software Freedom Against Free Software

    A reader's explanation of what Microsoft is trying to accomplish with its so-called 'embrace' and what steps will come next (how they manifest themselves)



  8. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, January 15, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, January 15, 2020



  9. Links 15/1/2020: CentOS Linux 8.1, Oracle VirtualBox 6.1.2 and GNU Sed 4.8

    Links for the day



  10. OSI Board at Microsoft: This is How Institutions Die or Completely Lose Their Purpose/Direction

    The photo (or meeting) may mark the turning point of the Openwashing as-a-Standard Initiative (OSI), which less than a year earlier took a bucket of money from Microsoft



  11. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 14, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 14, 2020



  12. When Microsoft's Actions Speak for Themselves (About Back Door Access)

    Unwittingly, people are being reminded of the 'special relationship' between Microsoft and the US Army (or government); The back doors or bug doors are still there, even 7 years after Edward Snowden's NSA leaks



  13. Why You -- Yes, You Too -- Should Consider Migrating to GNU/Linux

    The window is closing (and Windows/Vista 7 closing down); the chance to use machines that the users actually control is still there



  14. Can We Please Stop Lying for Microsoft in the Mainstream Media?

    Dishonesty for short-term financial gain (e.g. advertising money) will be a big loss in the long run. There’s a reason why so many news sites perish and Datamation (where I wrote more than a decade ago) now throws away remnants of reputation by spreading a big lie from Microsoft.



  15. It's Only Factual and Truthful to Point Out That About Half of the EPO's Management Committee Are From the President's Nation (and Many Are Underqualified Friends of His)

    The patent-granting extravaganza of what a reader and contributor of ours likes to call "Club Med" will result in great pain (not just for the Office but for Europe as a whole); pointing out who's to blame (the culprits) is an exercise in practicality



  16. Stranger Than Fiction: Team UPC's Mental Condition

    Team UPC's delusions continue to unmask UPC proponents (in 2020) as totally and entirely detached from reality



  17. Links 14/1/2020: IBM Joins LOT Network; X.Org Server 1.20.7, Tails 4.2.2 and Zanshin 0.5.71 Released

    Links for the day



  18. Vista 7 is Dead, Long Live GNU/Linux

    A reminder of Microsoft’s universal “PC tax” ambitions — evidence that the company was never interested in ‘playing nice’ with anybody



  19. Links 14/1/2020: Git v2.25.0 and End of Vista 7

    Links for the day



  20. Systematic Abandonment of the Independence of Judiciary at the EPO (or Collective Amnesia)

    The ‘constitution’ or the convention upon which the EPO is based (known as EPC) is routinely violated and nobody seems to care anymore; the EPO governs itself and conducts itself without as much as a fundamental legal text



  21. They Always Say They Love Linux (and 'the Children')

    Microsoft says it “loves Linux” and the Gates Foundation insists it “loves children” but the real underlying motivations have more to do with monopoly (Windows, Monsanto etc.) and nothing to do with “Linux” or “children” or whatever



  22. The Media's Obligation is Not to Repeat the Lies of EPO Management, But Money Changes Things

    The ridiculous lies about prospects of the Unified Patent Court are now spreading to EPO-friendly publishers — few powerful people to whom truth isn’t valued as much as the customers (their subscribers and sponsors are law firms)



  23. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 13, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, January 13, 2020



  24. The FSF and GNU Need a Better Savannah to Attract GitHub Refugees

    Thomas Grzybowski's explanation of why GitHub poses a risk to software freedom and what can be done about it



  25. Links 13/1/2020: Linux Lite 4.8, Linux 5.5 RC6, Corebird Continues as ‘Cawbird’

    Links for the day



  26. GNU is Not Linux and Not UNIX, Either

    When GNU started it needed to clarify that it wasn't UNIX but a UNIX-like replacement for it; now it needs to argue, sometimes in vain, that calling GNU with Linux just "Linux" is factually wrong



  27. Mansion of Pedophilia – Part VII: Guilty Verdict in Case of Pedophilia (Staff at the Mansion of Bill Gates), But Where Was the Mainstream Media?

    We take our first glimpse at court documents and a preliminary look (overview) of what the case in question entailed, with updates on the record for almost 5 years



  28. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, January 12, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, January 12, 2020



  29. Open Letter to Richard Stallman About the Free Software Movement

    New letter to the founder of GNU and the FSF; the authors "wish to have it published as an open letter as well."



  30. Links 12/1/2020: End of Windows 7, LibreOffice 6.4 RC2 and Sparky 5.10

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts