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

11.09.19

Think Tanks, Bristows, ‘Simmons’ and ‘Birds’ Can Only Ever Lie to Us About the Dead Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Don’t listen to the likes of Bird & Bird and Simmons & Simmons; they’re the very reason this abomination exists in the first place

A clump of feathersSummary: The UPC is a dead bird, but lobbyists of the litigation giants would have us believe otherwise, in “In-depth Analysis” which is anything but (it’s just propaganda with the veneer of officialism)

THE Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) is doomed. It has been doomed for a while. Nothing has changed. Some words from groups that call themselves “think tanks” have no concrete bearing. It’s just about perception-shaping. PR stunts, to put it bluntly…

“Team UPC’s pleadings border or verge on the comical.”But OK, we get it… Team UPC got a little excited some days ago. Can it use such “think tanks” to bamboozle the general public? Maybe even some high-profile judges in Germany? Maybe politicians across Europe? The opposition to the UPC only grew over time (at least five European governments now oppose it at one level or several levels).

Team UPC’s pleadings border or verge on the comical. They lie so often and so recklessly and when called out on it they run away! Don’t expect them to actually debate their position as they very well know their arguments are weak/invalid.

We’re rather disappointed that someone invited them (Bristows LLP at least) to a pro-FRAND event — an invitation they used for perceived legitimacy by tweeting: “Should component makers receive exhaustive licenses? Pat Treacy joins a panel discussion at @FOSSpatents conference in #Brussels – 12 Nov…”

That’s in a few days. @FOSSpatents retweeted this only because he had been mentioned. I already spoke to him about why inviting these people is bad karma. He pro-actively tried to defend this decision. They’re always lying at IP Kat and they’ve turned that blog into a pro-FRAND, pro-patent trolls farce. Here’s her colleague, Edward Nodder, with the UPC propaganda — the first blog post in a very long time; he is again pushing the malicious UPC, with help from IAM’s parent/patent company.

Bristows amplifies some blog post entitled “European Parliament publishes research paper on how Brexit may affect UPC” and of course Bristows just twists whatever came out of there. It’s a think tank, not the European Parliament, which merely published it. In their words: “The European Parliament (EP) published on 5 November 2019 a research [sic] paper EU Patent and Brexit, an “In-depth Analysis” which considers how Brexit may affect the proposed unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) system. It was requested by the EP’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and commissioned, overseen and published by the EP’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.”

It’s more JURI than European Parliament per se. “Not very deep,” Benjamin Henrion rightly called it. “They barely scratched the surface.”

It’s short and shallow. “EPO have their lobbyists in Brussels,” Henrion reminded me, so we view this ‘study’ as lobbying disguised as “research”. We have legitimate reasons to view and to treat it that way. Thankfully, some people have already responded to it. Critics find lots of issues.

“JURI outsourced a report on Unitary Patent status,” Henrion wrote, “while they should have looked at the actual constitutional complaints. Parliament said in 2012 “(i) the Contracting Member States can only be Member States of the EU” which solves the UK Brexit question https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/596800/IPOL_IDA(2019)596800_EN.pdf …”

Later they get worried about more 'brexits'. Why have they outsourced and to who exactly? Take a wild guess!

In reality, the Parliament needs to arrest people (some of the people in the EPO’s management committed actual crimes), not push illegal treaties.

As Henrion added: “New European Parliament report written for JURI, which does not address any of the legal questions, just trying to push it through. Cost of litigation will be higher for defending SMEs, in an already expensive system #upc https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/596800/IPOL_IDA(2019)596800_EN.pdf …”

Obviously.

Even some people in the litigation sector don’t disagree. One of them said [1, 2]: “The problem, and I agree with you on this, is that the UPC might be used by large firms to threat or crush SMEs, regardless of the merits of the case, just playing on the costs. It is a risk. In my opinon the schedule of court fees needs a revision. [...] 1st instance ruling, Italy: average total costs according to my experience 25k-35k / peak 30k-40k. Thus, considering the high court fees of the UPC, the UPC system would be ok only in comparison with the case of multiple litigations in multiple jurisdictions. Otherwise not…”

He spoke to me as well; he’s relatively reasonable and it’s not the first time he admits those things; he doesn’t parrot the general Team UPC ‘bible’…

The UPC is clearly an attack on SMEs, just like the EPO is. At times even Team UPC admitted this (that it had lied about SMEs).

“They need to scrap the whole thing because it was written for, and by, litigation firms and their lobbyists whose largest clients aren’t even European and are monopolists,” I told the person above (not named in respect to him; he might receive flak from Team UPC).

Bristows perhaps decided that the above wasn’t sufficient propaganda for the zombie UPCA. So within hours it also published “Dutch parliament approves amendment of national patent law to implement UPC system” and apparently paid to buy some more audience (almost nobody reads their blog, which is technically broken a lot of the time). “The Netherlands has ratified the UPC Agreement (depositing its instrument of ratification in September 2016),” they admit. So this is hardly news but, as they recently admitted to the Financial Times, an attempt to give an illusion of “progress”.

Typical Bristows!

Later they wonder why they’re being ridiculed. WIPR, boosted by Team UPC and quoting Team UPC (e.g. Simmons & Simmons), soon followed with propaganda in its site and in Twitter. Team UPC then quoted Team UPC from this ‘report’: “Kevin Mooney, partner at Simmons & Simmons in London, said that the UK government’s message on the UPC has been consistent. “I don’t think there are mixed messages at all,” Mooney said.”

Liar! Liar liar!

If one examines actual comments from people who aren’t in Team UPC and haven’t crafted this monster, the lies very soon become evident. But they’re suppressing comments, as we pointed out over the years. They’re rigging the public debate by outright censorship.

WIPR is only quoting Team UPC but not actual people impacted by UPC because this site is trashy propaganda that spikes real journalism! (I’ve heard stories about them)

Team UPC is also linking to Bristows, so it’s basically an echo chamber [1, 2] like this: “The paper „notes that the UK’s ratification of the UPCA [..|] sends a <somewhat mixed message>; eg, the UPCA provides for respect of EU law’s primacy & reference to the CJEU [...], yet the UK has stated that it wishes to leave the EU’s single market and the CJEU’s jurisdiction.“ …”

One prominent proponent of the UPC wrote: “The same reasoning applies to Germany as well. UPC system can be expected to be rather complex and expensive, in particular for SME‘s.”

“SMEs were at no point involved,” I responded to him and Henrion said: “German government and its Ministry of Justice also had to provide a study on the impact of UPC on SMEs. It is still time to request it, on last page: “There is no compliance burden for the economy, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.” https://stjerna.de/files/Unipat_BMJV&GG.pdf” (citing the recent paper from Stjerna).

Another UPC watcher responded: “Are you sure about that, @EP_ThinkTank? If the EPO refuses an application, no european patent is granted, no unitary patent can be born and the UPC has no review power over the EPO refusal.”

There’s a screenshot in there. I reminded him that the EPO breaks its own laws; it would be insane to trust it with courts. “Kluwer Patent blogger” (probably Bristows) then did another propaganda piece that said:

The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice for the European Union is not excluding the possibility to allow a non-EU Member State forming part of the UPCA. This is one of the conclusions in ‘EU Patent and Brexit’, a research paper which was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs and commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. The report was published on 5 November 2019.

All the comments refute this piece, which is little but so-called ‘unitary’ (whose?) patent propaganda.

Also, as usual, the signal is only in the comments, not the (likely-by-Bristows) original ‘article’, which would be self-promotional spin that resembles what Bristows’ posts elsewhere. Notice that first comment, which made it past the strict moderation (they often censor UPC critics):

Astonishing! Despite representing by far the most lightweight analysis that I have ever seen of the impact of Brexit upon the UPC, the report is presented as an “in-depth” analysis.

It adds nothing to the discussion to state that “the jurisprudence of the CJEU is not EXPRESSLY excluding the possibility to allow a non-EU Member State forming part of the UPCA”. This merely reflects the fact that the CJEU has never been asked to opine on that point. Therefore, at a very minimum, any serious legal analysis would have gone on to consider whether there are any other reasons (such as the sections of Opinion 1/09 dedicated to discussion of the Principle of Sincere Cooperation) to interpret Opinion 1/09 as IMPLICITLY excluding the participation of a non-EU Member State.

The absence of any such discussion means that a more appropriate description of the report is a representation of currently prevailing POLITICAL (as opposed to legal) views within the European Parliament. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the conclusions in the report will be relied upon by supporters of the UPC as representing some sort of conclusive evidence of the absence of barriers to the UK’s continued participation. Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

What other comments were posted there and possibly censored? It’s hard for UPC critics to have voice themselves, except perhaps in orphaned “tweets”. The litigation team of Big Pharma (Rose Hughes) posted a loaded and misleading headline (phrased as a question, to which the answer would characteristically be “no”).

So what we have here is an outsourced “European Parliament Think Tank” and the EPO/litigation think tank IP Kat. Team UPC is seemingly everywhere, rigging the debate or pushing to ruin Europe for lawsuit euros and patent trolls. Hughes wrote:

The European Parliament Think Tank has issued a paper on the question of whether the UK can remain a member of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) in a post-Brexit world. The cautious conclusion of the paper is that “it seems not per se legally impossible that the UK can stay within the UPCA [UPC agreement], even when not an EU Member State”. The problem of the UK’s continued membership of the UPCA arises from the fact that, when the UPC was conceived, nobody envisaged the UK unilaterally deciding to leave the EU.

The EU paper outlines the issues contributing to the uncertain future of the UPC and the potential involvement (or not) of the UK in the UPC project going forward. These include the reluctance of Germany to ratify the agreement before Brexit and the unclear position of the UK Government on whether the UK still wishes to be a member of the UPC (and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU).

[...]

The UK Government’s position is that the UK wants to “take back control” of its laws by leaving the jurisdiction of the CJEU. However, the UK Government has also ratified the UPC agreement (UPCA). According to the UPCA, the UPC will apply EU law and decisions of the CJEU will be binding on the UPC. Therefore, as things stand, if the UK continues to be a member of the UPC post-Brexit the UK will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

No comments when we first checked. Were some deleted? We’ve already proven that they delete UPC-hostile comments. Got to control the narrative, right? For the “greater good” (of litigation).

Later on two comments showed up; one said: “The paper does not mention that under Art. 1 UPCA only EU member states can be part of the UPC!
Moreover, the paper confuses the origin of the European patents with their validation states: in Italy there are twice more European patents in force than in the Netherlands…”

Another comment said: “The Lexico dictionary gives the following meaning for esoteric: “Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest”. I find it difficult to see how Ms. Hughes’ use of the word can be criticized.”

So comments aren’t buying what Hughes is saying; remember who she works for.

Anyway, not much to see here, except another charm offensive from Team UPC and a think tank grossly overselling a ‘study’.

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. Microsoft Tim: Microsoft is Now Defending Linux

    The difference between fiction and reality



  2. Justice Peter Huber of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) Calls 'Bullshit' a Rumour Nobody Really Spreads

    A sort of 'trial by media' (by Team UPC) compromises the integrity of the case (constitutional complaint) and can be interpreted as judges succumbing to lobbying/pressure from those who conspire to violate many constitutions across Europe for personal/financial gain



  3. Understanding Thierry Breton: What Thierry Did Next...

    "Whether by coincidence or not, when Atos announced in 2010 that it would acquire Siemens’ IT unit, it was the 32-year-old Macron at Rothschild who advised Breton on the deal."



  4. Links 20/11/2019: HONOR MagicBook With GNU/Linux, Coreboot 4.11, GNU Health Patchset 3.6.1

    Links for the day



  5. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, November 19, 2019

    IRC logs for Tuesday, November 19, 2019



  6. EPO Geared Towards Financial Exploitation of Europe Instead of Serving Europe

    For the financial benefit of law firms and patent offices (they profit from processing loads of patents and lawsuits) Europe is being reverted back to Medieval Times when exercising invention and free thought (or free coding) was a luxury of the rich alone



  7. Microsoft and IBM Are the Patent Trolls, They Won't Protect Us From Trolls

    "Microsoft has no taste" and IBM has no taste, either; they're lying to our collective face together with OIN and the 'Linux' Foundation



  8. How Ralph Nader Put It

    Ralph Nader on money in politics



  9. ZDNet (CBS) Associates GNU/Linux Users With ISIS

    Response to "US student was allegedly building a custom Gentoo Linux distro for ISIS," just published by ZDNet and composed by their biggest troll, Catalin Cimpanu



  10. Understanding Thierry Breton: Noël Forgeard and His “Golden Parachute”

    The end of the first half of the Breton series; in this particular part we continue to cover the EADS scandal and the second half of this series will include the EPO connections (the vote in a plenary for Breton's nomination is due 27/11)



  11. Links 19/11/2019: Zswap's B-Tree Search Implementation, WordPress 5.2.4

    Links for the day



  12. We've Already Entered the Era When Patents Should be Presumed Invalid

    The abundance of low-quality patents may mean short-term profits for patent offices and law firms; but we know at whose expense they are profiting and the legitimacy of patent systems suffers as a result



  13. Jean-Luc Breton

    Breton a champion of obstruction and obfuscation



  14. Understanding Thierry Breton: Insider-Trading Scandal at EADS

    Although Breton was not directly implicated in the insider trading scandal itself he did come under fire in 2007 for the role he played in a side-show to the main story, namely the payment of a generous € 8.5m severance package to Noël Forgeard when the EADS co-CEO was compelled to resign in June 2006.



  15. Startpage is Not Denying Its Betrayal of Privacy, It is Just Being Evasive

    They can't call you a liar if you issue a non-denying 'denial'; the "Roll Safe Think About It" meme seems applicable here



  16. Guest Post: Open Source is Not Free Software

    "If you look at human history, you can see lots of similar ideas, movements, intellectuals who are affected by the power of the ruling class like this."



  17. IRC Proceedings: Monday, November 18, 2019

    IRC logs for Monday, November 18, 2019



  18. Links 19/11/2019: HPC Focus and LibreOffice 6.4 Beta

    Links for the day



  19. Understanding Thierry Breton: “Rhodiagate” and the Vivendi Universal Affair

    When the "Rhodia affair" became the "Breton affair"



  20. Links 18/11/2019: Last Linux RC, OSMC Updated

    Links for the day



  21. What GitHub is to Open Source

    Lots of prisoners inside GitHub



  22. Openwashing Institutionalised NPEs (OIN) and Software Patents With Notorious Managers From the EPO

    There’s a strong push for software patents in Europe (basically fake European Patents on abstract ideas) and IAM leads/participates in it with help from OIN, Grant Philpott (EPO) and — maybe soon — Breton (EU)



  23. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, November 17, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, November 17, 2019



  24. Links 17/11/2019: Slax Beta and Arch Conf 2019 Report





  25. Understanding Thierry Breton: The “Cost-Killer” Tries to Tame the National Debt

    The oligarchic policy of Thierry Breton at Bercy



  26. Reactions to Last Week's Thierry Breton Hearing

    Nobody is particularly impressed by Thierry Breton except those who know little about him (and he contributes to this lack of knowledge by obstructing, omitting, and misleading)



  27. The Open Invention Network Has Become a Guard Dog of (Some) Patent Trolls and It Misrepresents Us Under the Guise of 'Open Source'

    The Open Invention Network (OIN), in collaboration with Fraunhöfer, is promoting software patents and all sorts of other nonsense as part of ‘open’ standards in a new paper sponsored by the EU and edited by the former EPO Chief Economist Nikolaus Thumm (not Battistelli's choice); this is another reminder of the fact that OIN misrepresents Free/Open Source software (FOSS) developers and their interests



  28. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, November 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, November 16, 2019



  29. Unitary Patent is Dead Partly Because the EPO Demonstrated That EPC is Being Routinely Violated, Illegal Patents Granted

    Some elements of Team UPC have given up, whereas others try to push the lie that Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court (UPC) is not an EU thing and that therefore everything is fine



  30. USPTO Rewards Microsoft for Corruption at ISO by Teaching People Proprietary OOXML and Promoting Its Use

    The world's most important patent office promotes Microsoft lock-in, revealing not only corporate bias but also highlighting ways in which Microsoft crimes continue to pay off


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