12.20.20
Gemini version available ♊︎Team UPC Throws Vienna Convention Out the Window/Under a Bus and Vienna’s EPO Branch (in EPC) Discarded by EPO Management
In the same away BoA was illegally cast away/thrown into Haar for the mere pretence of EPC compliance (not that BoA has any real independence)
Summary: Staff of the EPO is smart enough to see what EPO management has up its sleeve (see "The EPO is Silently Shrinking in Vienna"); it’s neither legal nor acceptable, which is why the strikes are back and SUEPO envisions a year of conflict ahead
AS we noted just over a day ago, many workers of the EPO in Vienna went on strike, seeing that the boss of António Campinos (no, not a Czech guy from the Council) continues the war on the EPC and on EPO staff. While studying the history of it I stumbled upon this old article from Ingrid Marson; even in 2006 a concern was raised that EPO managers failed “to enforce the quality standards set by the European Patent Convention”. Here are some portions, or the two closing paragraphs:
This is not the first time patent examiners have raised the issue. In a 2004 survey of 1,300 EPO patent examiners, three-quarters of staff claimed productivity demands from managers did not allow them “to enforce the quality standards set by the European Patent Convention”.
Campaigners against software patents have also criticised the quality of patents issued by the EPO. In particular, they have been frustrated that the EPO has continued to grant software patents despite last year’s rejection of the software patent directive.
This mentions software patents in Europe; those should never be granted. That’s the kind of thing that got us ‘fired up’ in the first place (chastising the EPO).
While recording the above video (first take, no scripting) I realised, in hindsight, that it was worth bringing up this latest post from Kluwer Patent Blog (apparently Bristows again). The Unitary Patent (UPC) post is highly misleading, but this latest comment stands out:
Of “If no complaints are filed, two more countries will have to ratify (or otherwise consent to) the PPA for the provisional application phase to come into force”, what does the Vienna Convention on Treaties say?
Vienna Convention on Treaties, Article 24, Entry into force says:
24.1. A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.
• But, the requirement for UK ratification, that the UPC Agreement provides, has not been satisfied.
24.2. Failing any such provision or agreement, a treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be bound by the treaty has been established for all the negotiating States.
• But, all the negotiating states, which include the UK, have not given such consent.
• Could the UPC Agreement be amended to allow entry into force without UK ratification? Article 39 allows amendment?
Article 39: A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply to such an agreement except insofar as the treaty may otherwise provide.
• It requires agreement between the parties. That includes the UK.
• Is there such an agreement?
As readers may have noticed, we barely mention the UPC anymore, just as we promised over a month ago. It’s not getting anywhere, but lots of faked 'news' from Team UPC would tell people otherwise; we mention those pieces in Daily Links along with remarks to debunk them (it’s relegated to that because it’s just not worth the mention anymore). As we wrote back in July, citing or directly quoting an EPO insider: “There is No Longer a Legal Context and No One Left to Implement It and Nothing to Be Rescued.” Weeks ago we were given an insider story about ‘Fraudlinger’. It’s really sad that Europe’s second-largest institution is run by a bunch of liars and frauds. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA