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

06.30.18

Team UPC’s Radicals, Firms Like Bristows LLP, Have Decided That It’s Time to Change Constitutions to Accommodate Clearly Unconstitutional Unitary Patent (UPC)

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 5:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“YOUR CONSTITUTION IS WRONG!!”

Alex Robinson
People who disagree with Team UPC are “idiots” and Constitutions which deny UPC need to be amended (“require a constitutional amendment,” according to Bristows LLP)

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) gets another new barrier in line; there are now approximately half a dozen very major obstacles, which almost guarantee that the UPC(A) will need to be scrapped and efforts restart from scratch (if at all)

THE staff of the EPO is partying this weekend. We probably won’t comment on the EPO until Monday, which is the first working day for António Campinos (presumably with a 5-year term/position and possible extensions to that).

“The UPC didn’t need any additional barriers in order for it to be dead in the water.”For a change, let’s talk about the Unified Patent Court (UPC). It is pretty much stuck and we often say it is dead, and not just because of Germany and EPO corruption but also Brexit and various other aspects, including Constitutional ones. There’s lots of legalese associated with it, but to put it in terms anyone can understand, imagine being sued by a patent troll from the United States in a court that does not speak your language. Would that be a fair trial? Would that be enforceable? It’s a rather alien notion of justice. But that’s UPC…

The UPC didn’t need any additional barriers in order for it to be dead in the water. But if there are any new ones, bring them on! So the “Hungarian Constutional Court rules that UPC Agreement cannot be ratified,” said this headline from patent maximalists yesterday. From the post (short and sweet, no obvious spin):

On 29th June, 2018 the decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court was published on the Court’s website following the Hungarian Government’s motion for the interpretation of the Hungarian Constitution (Basic Act) in relation to the ratification of the UPC Agreement.

Today the Constitutional Court ruled that the UPC Agreement as an international agreement made in the framework of enhanced cooperation deprives the Hungarian courts from having competence for judicial review on a group of domestic legal disputes of individuals. As such right for judicial review is exclusively reserved for Hungarian courts under Article 24 (2) of the Basic Act, the UPC Agreement cannot be ratified based on the current wording of the constitution.

So there we go. Other sites brought up Bulgaria and Romania. But Hungary is a lot more critical, based on various criteria including the number of European Patents. As proper journalism is basically dead/dying (for various reasons), UPC news is not covered by the mainstream if at all, except by patent maximalists; most of the discussion about it is in social control media, with perhaps hundreds of bits of input. So we’ve seen lots of these and picked a subset of what’s relevant or what was seen by more people. Our intention is to show readers the crooked mindset of Team UPC and even some voices of reason within it (telling the more radical among them to quit spreading misinformation).

“Our intention is to show readers the crooked mindset of Team UPC and even some voices of reason within it (telling the more radical among them to quit spreading misinformation).”Let’s start by examining coverage from the Team UPC-dominated Kluwer Patent Blog. An anonymous member of the blog now covers — and of course spins — the latest major setback for the dying UPCA ratification effort. Remember that comments which dissent against UPC are blocked or suppressed; they implemented such a policy some months ago. Last we checked there were no comments on this blog post, so their narrative/framing cannot be challenged. How convenient.

Patrick Wingrove, who is based in London and writes for the UPC-boosting Managing IP (seems like some staff may have left or isn’t active there anymore), also wrote about it. Managing IP, in writing about UPC, no longer calls it “Progress Report” because there’s no progress. It’s a dead, lame duck. “Managing IP rounds up developments related to the Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent in June,” the summary says. No developments to report really; we’ve been following that closely and the main ‘development’ was relay of two infamous lies. Wingrove sounds a bit like Bristows, starting with:

Romania and Bulgaria got closer to ratifying the UPC Agreement this month, but Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled the UPC Agreement cannot be ratified.

Romania and Bulgaria aren’t relevant to any of it; only Bristows kept obsessing over it.

An idiotic Twitter account whose sole purpose (and name, “UPC BVerfG out yet?”) is designed to pressure for dismissal of the constitutional complaint in Germany said that “another EU MS constitutional court had something to say…”

“Romania and Bulgaria aren’t relevant to any of it; only Bristows kept obsessing over it.”Something to say? It did more than say something. But anyway, what can be expected from an account with such a name? Team UPC’s Thomas Adam (“UPCtracker”) wrote and quoted the patent maximalists, whereupon FFII’s Benjamin Henrion mentioned one of very many aspects that render UPC moot and illegal: “The court was also not asked about other aspects of the UPC, like automated translations.”

There are even worse things than these. The UPC is absolutely crazy! To think that it ever got close to fruition makes one wonder about Europe’s (mal)functioning democracy. UPC is just a wishlist of the litigation industry, patent trolls, and the most aggressive monopolists that aren’t even based in Europe!

Alex Robinson, who calls UPC opponents (like Henrion and us) "idiots" or "trolls", then reared his head to say: “This is very interesting ["interesting" as in "I am angry about it!"] – if I’ve understood that summary correctly, it’s difficult to see how *any* unified patent court system, in any form, could be compatible with the Hungarian Constitution. [] Does the pending Stjerna case in Germany contain similar arguments? Are there similar provisions in the German Basic Law? [] So if UPCA excluded national law as a source of law for UPC proceedings, this could be resolved? That would presumably create its own uncertainties though, eg in determining questions such as entitlement which are not explicitly dealt with by the EPC, by the UPCA or by EU law…”

“The UPC is absolutely crazy! To think that it ever got close to fruition makes one wonder about Europe’s (mal)functioning democracy.”The same sort of complaint/argument could probably be brought up (reused) by Henrion in Belgium and elsewhere. It’s just a matter of budget because costs are prohibitive and we lack financial incentive to take this to courts. Henrion joked: “Or rewrite the UPC to make integrate it with the CJEU. But I bet we will see patent maximalists calling for a change of the HU constitution.”

He was right. Henrion was absolutely right about that, as the patent maximalists (notably Bristows) did just that. Well, we should definitely use the term “patent maximalists” a lot more, maybe “patent extremists” too (albeit it’s less polite). Robinson finds both terms offensive; he said: “I love this bogus pejorative “patent maximalists” that gets thrown around by certain bloggers [alluding to us]. As far as I can work out, it means “anyone who doesn’t think all patents, on anything, anywhere in the world, are intrinsically a bad thing”.”

That’s not at all what we consider to be patent maximalists; Robinson got it all wrong. As for him, we regard him to be “Team UPC” — a whole ‘nother level of patent zealotry (almost on par with Bristows’). These are people who not only lie routinely but also advocate breaking nationals laws, violating constitutions etc.

“The same sort of complaint/argument could probably be brought up (reused) by Henrion in Belgium and elsewhere.”Robinson was then told by Henrion: “Let’s ask the Hungarian court about non legally binding automated translations. Plus all the other points raised by Stjerna. I don’t think the court has only looked at the points raised by the government.”

Henrion keeps talking back to them — something that I stopped bothering with last year (because it’s like talking to a wall; they’re not listening, they’re not accepting facts). Robinson said: “Let’s wait for a translation of the decision! It’s certainly going to be interesting to see if any of the points considered by the court under Hungarian law map onto the details of the Stjerna complaint under German law.”

As if merely having a translation of the decision will change the decision itself; they’re just looking for ways to nitpick, spin and take it out of context, that’s all…

Bristows, however, has already done just that, even before an English (or Spanish) translation became available. Bristows’ Manuel Rey-Alvite wrote: “Oddly, if I understood right (!), it would’ve been worse (thinking Brexit) if the Court had said that HU could ratify using their sovereignty transfer clause for EU treaties. That would have simplified HU ratification but muddied up the rest.”

What on Earth is he talking about???

“As if merely having a translation of the decision will change the decision itself; they’re just looking for ways to nitpick, spin and take it out of context, that’s all…”These people are nuts! Bristows is patently delusional!! Edward Nodder from Bristows now pretends that they can get around the courts; all they need to do — wink wink! — is rewrite the Constitution! Just for the UPC. Just wow!!!

Wow!

Not too surprisingly, even some people of Team UPC mock this post from Bristows. “A rather optimistic take on things,” Thomas Adam wrote. “They should be disbarred,” I remarked, having witnessed and documented their lies and fabrications over the past 3 years or so. People actually pay them for legal advice? Here’s another remark on this post from Bristows: “You say ‘Constitutional amendments are not as rare in Hungary’ and UPC was rejected coz of lack of ‘judicial review’. But is it ever possible to amend Constitution in order to remove judicial review, when JR is definitional of Constitution? Where I sd send u a Public Law textbook…” (prior to that this very same person said “Hungarian Constitutional Court rules that UPC Agreement cannot be ratified”)

“There is a similarity here between Team Battistelli and Team UPC, which seems to believe that it is above the law and whatever sick ends (litigation profits) always justify the means.”This defeats the very purpose of a Constitution. If one can just change it to adapt to anything that’s against it, then what it the essence or purpose of such a Constitution in the first place? There’s a lot of literature about this topic, even TV shows. Again… wow!

There is a similarity here between Team Battistelli and Team UPC, which seems to believe that it is above the law and whatever sick ends (litigation profits) always justify the means.

Most countries did not even check constitutionality, but there too the UPC is totally not Constitutional. In fact, we thought about filing a Constitutional complaint in the UK, but with Brexit it’s already dead here, so ratification was merely a “PR show” on “World IP Day”.

UPC Blog by Amar (Team UPC) said: “It does not seem that Hungary will be ratifying the Unified Patent Court Agreement anytime soon…”

There’s lots more on this, but people even inside Team UPC are depressed about it. Kingsley Egbuonu (also Team UPC) is in ‘damage control’ mode. To quote: “So it’s Hungary’s turn to throw a spanner in the UPC works! Would be interesting to read/understand the court’s reasoning. Yes, not good news (in terms of image/morale) but no panic because, obviously, the UPCA’s fate is in the hands of the German Constitutional Court.”

“Most countries did not even check constitutionality, but there too the UPC is totally not Constitutional.”“No panic,” he said, just like an Iraqi communications minister.

Recalling the key fact that the referendum in Ireland got called off, UPC observer (among other things) Dr. Luke McDonagh said: “That Ireland will have to pass a constitutional referendum/amendment to ratify the Unified Patent Court is another reminder of the influence of public law on private law”

“Ireland need not bother,” I told him, “because the UPCA (on UPC abomination — an open door to patent trolls in Europe) is already in its death throes.”

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. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  2. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  3. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  4. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  5. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  6. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  7. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  8. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  9. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  10. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  11. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  12. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  13. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  14. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  15. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  17. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  18. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  19. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  20. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  21. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  22. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  23. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  24. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  25. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  26. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  27. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  28. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  29. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?



  30. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)


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