TODAY or yesterday marks a month since the final death blow to the UPC, which was falsely marketed as European "unity" or "community". It's a lie, just like the idea that law firms are "IP community" (nothing like community about it).
"The ramifications are profound and more far-reaching than the European Patent Office (EPO) will ever publicly acknowledge."In the 'calm' of corona -- for lack of a better term (it's like a silent killer) -- we looked back at so-called 'press' coverage which wasn't as visible a month ago. And surely enough a month ago behind a paywall the patent maximalist Scott Graham published something insinuating that the UPC's rejection by the FCC was merely a "snub", noting: "The country's Federal Constitutional Court says a two-thirds vote of its parliament is necessary before Germany can get behind the long-running project."
It didn't appear to us until today and it downplays what happened, within just hours of it happening. He's calling a violation of the law being pointed out... a "snub". It's in the headline. UPC rejected? Those snobs!!! Those opinionated judges!!!
"He's calling a violation of the law being pointed out... a "snub". It's in the headline."Well, enforcing the law and the constitutions is never a "snub"; To ignore those is a lot worse than a "snub" and it is likely an offence, too.
This is what happens when so many sites about law are controlled by law firms. Watch ICLG.com having just published self-promotional spam as an 'article', treating a mere job change of Team UPC folks as actual "news". This person's "career included more than twelve years at Bird & Bird, with more than six of those years as a partner in its Dusseldorf office. This was followed by a nearly six-year tenure in Simmons & Simmons’ dispute resolution practice."
Two of the worst of Team UPC, except perhaps Bristows. Nobody is worse than Bristows when it comes to UPC lies.
"Nobody is worse than Bristows when it comes to UPC lies."In hindsight, and looking back at the FCC's historic decision years or decades down the line, scholars will hopefully see (and remember) the UPC for what it really was. It was at least partly a cautionary tale or lesson on legislative capture. You might get away with it for a year or even a decade. But if that comes to a court -- more so a constitutional court (and not just in Germany by the way; not anymore) -- it will blow back, discrediting a lot of law firms and their publishers in the process.
We hope that people out there, EPO examiners included, look back at all that UPC press coverage from the past few years. See how often you were being lied to. These lies are their business model. This is the kind of thing they're being paid for. ⬆