Zoobab's (Benjamin Henrion) new UPC meme
THE patent system in Europe languishes. Litigation? Not the same thing. After the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted loads of Invalid Patents (IPs), which were wrongly enshrined as European Patents (EPs) because Campinos and Battistelli break the rules (software patents are illegal in Europe for a number of reasons, not just the EPC*; the same goes for patents on life and nature), litigation that's frivolous saw a sharp rise. Pertinent figures from Germany have been published in annual studies and we wrote several stories about these. So, in short, patent quality down, litigation up. As expected. And that's not even counting the number of assertions/shakedowns happening outside courts...
"So, in short, patent quality down, litigation up. As expected. And that's not even counting the number of assertions/shakedowns happening outside courts..."The courts, which are national, are currently an important obstruction to fake patents. As we keep showing, many EPs are nowadays rejected and invalidated by such courts. Law firms, joined by EPO thugs who shamelessly violate the EPC, tried hard to replace these courts. They lied, they broke laws, they sought to subvert a lot of constitutions in a great hurry/rush (before the public finds out), but thankfully they failed. They failed for a number of different reasons. And the longer these things drag on, the harder it becomes for them (more constitutional challenges arise, along with independent studies that demonstrate how awful, illegal and undesirable the UPC/A really is).
On Thursday the JUVE propagandist in chief (on UPC it's a megaphone of Team UPC) tweeted: "Here's the exclusive JUVE Patent interview with #UPC Prepatory Committee chair, Alexander Ramsay. Ramsay explains how the constitutional delay has worked to the committee's advantage, and why the UK should remain part of the European #patent project."
So they have "exclusive" (yes, EXCLUSIVE) "JUVE Patent interview" with a known liar. Only months ago they admitted to the Financial Times that they had been faking progress to maintain their self-made illusion that UPC had a chance. At the same time they used psychological warfare (like spreading deliberate lies) against German Justices in the FCC -- to the point where one of them gave an "exclusive" (totally inappropriate [1, 2, 3]) interview to a Team UPC front group/pressure group. These people play dirty. I responded to JUVE yesterday (Friday), joking about that part that says "the constitutional delay has worked to the committee's advantage..."
"These people play dirty."What an utter lie!
"Oh, I see," I responded. "We got caught violating constitutions across Europe and that… and that, well… “worked to the committee’s advantage”
"Smoking is good for you," was my analogy, "makes your lungs stronger!"
Thank you for smoking!
This is the sort of laughable argument style we've become accustomed to. Watch Team UPC getting burned in the comments (that even Team UPC allows past strict moderation; yes, they censor comments). It's very revealing everywhere one turns. Team UPC isn't believed by anyone except Team UPC and we've even seen some longtime UPC proponents changing their mind/tune. Even IAM a year ago.
Taking note of something we covered some days ago (US stance on UPC), AstraZenecaKat wrote about such patent fanaticism (extremism?) and how Donald Trump's government uses the EPC as a vehicle of patent maximalism in the UK. It goes beyond what we covered a day after the leak:
This Kat was probably not alone in being slightly bemused by the recent media reporting on the leaked “451-page dossier” describing US/UK talks on future trade arrangements. The BBC reportsthe dossier as showing that the US is interested in "extending patents” in the UK. How strange. Is the US government proposing some novel form of patent term extension currently unavailable to patentees in the UK? Fear not, IPKat is here to provide some clarity!
It turns out that, contrary to media reporting, the dossier does not mention anything radical with respect to patent term extension. However, there are some interesting insights to be gained from the dossier on the potential battleground for IP rights in future US/UK trade negotiations. Most notable is the US government's position on grace periods for disclosure before patent filings, which are not permitted under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
[...]
The US delegation was also interested to hear the UK government plans with respect to the UPC. [Merpel: wouldn’t we all?] The US expressed surprise that the UK government had ratified the UPC agreement before the UK’s exit. The US mentioned that US stakeholders were strongly in favour of the UK participating in the UPC. The UK replied that “we intend to stay part of the agreement through the implementation period…Beyond this is subject to negotiation”. This position was described in the subsequently published FEB white paper. The dossier thus does not make us any the wiser with regards to the UK's intended negotiating position in post-Brexit negotiations with the US. Whether the UK will be able to be a member of the UPC after Brexit was discussed in a recent report from the European Parliament think-tank (IPKat: Can the UK become and stay a member of the UPC?)
[...]
The dossier therefore does provide some tip-bits of interesting information regarding US/UK thinking on IP protection and its relation to drug pricing. Reassuringly, despite the media reporting, there does not appear to be anything radical "on the table" with respect to patent term or data exclusivity. The US position on grace periods is the most concerning of all the issues under discussion. It would be an extraordinary act of self-harm for the UK to withdraw from the EPC, and this would have significant disadvantages not only the UK but also the US and third parties such as China and Japan. However, the dossier highlights throughout many areas that still need clarification. Final negotiating positions between the US and UK will also be highly dependent on the UK's negotiating position with the EU following Brexit.
The comment from "Honesty" is hard to swallow. The EU is indeed a big Bloc, with 600 million consumers and, within it, the UK is one of the "Big 3" Member States. So, a Big Fish in a Big Pool.
As the 51st State of the USA though, with zero representation in the US Congress, it is not even a Fish, and in a pool only half as big. And what's all this nonsense about a "bridgehead" into Europe. The EU is already fully cognisant of the threat of a deregulated UK free-riding the European market. Use of force to effect a landing on the European Mainland is not an option except in times of war.
As we are now, given our language and professional skills, we in the UK should be filing at the EPO the Lion's Share of everything sent to the EPO by both Asia and The Americas. If the UK leaves the EU it will have little or nothing of that ongoing business.
Is there no limit to the skill with which Westminster politicians squander in a few decades the huge reserves of soft power built up by the UK over centuries?