Summary: A sobering reality check regarding the UPC, no matter what Lucy Neville-Rolfe says under pressure from Battistelli and some selfish law firms that are based in London

"Tomorrow on 11/29," (that's today), the USPTO wrote, "EPO shares information on new practices and procedures at #USPTOMidwest." What practices and procedures are these? Bribery? Union-busting? Corruption? All the above? The EPO has become a den of corruption, bullying, thuggery, lies, bribery and so much more. It's far, FAR worse than FIFA ever was. But somehow there is no shakeup, at least not in the media. In fact, the media (as we noted in parts one and two of this series) was filled with EPO-leaning propaganda this week. It's utterly appalling, though not entirely unexpected or unusual. Battistelli wastes a lot of money manipulating the media.

"Finally," one person joked, "the #UPC is coming into farce!"

Not into force but a farce, as many people out there still don't believe the EPO and Team UPC, who are liars that use self-fulfilling prophecy strategies. They are far from their objective considering the legal challenges and petitions that are likely on their way. Besides, if Brexit is happening, there are also doubts about what happens to UPC when it happens. As one person said it: "V. revealing that meaningless phrases (cake & eat it) trump imp. Brexit news (UK to ratify UPC). No-one cares about detail. Soft Brexit."

Brexit for the poor, not for the rich (patent lawyers who grease up our officials).

"So, I am not entirely convinced our UPC participation will survive Brexit," wrote another person, "despite today's signal to ratify."

How much did they lobby Lucy and others to 'buy' the UPC proposition and how is that even lawful? Is Lucy just trying to pull a publicity stunt here, in spite of the realisation that it simply boils down to a farce?

Alex Robinson said: "According to "informed circles in London" the UK WILL ratify UPC Agreeement. Huge if true. Confirmation expected later..."

But that's just what Robinson wants to believe, based on a mere statement from Mathieu Klos who got the story early and wrote "+++Eilt+++ UK beendet Hängepartie + verkündet heute in Brüssel "its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement" http://juve.de/?p=284122"

Combine that with the misleading headline from Bristows and all we have here is an echo chamber accompanied by Lucy, who may be making promises she cannot even fulfill.

Dr. Birgit Clark, linking to the article in German from Mathieu Klos, added that "if this is true, then the UK will today announce "its intention to ratify the #UPC agreement"" (but that alone does not mean it will be possible).

"I think today's announce brings clarity for Europe wrt #UPC launch," wrote one person, "but things remain woefully unclear for the #UK after #BREXIT"

Moreover, the UPC cannot be launched once citizens are either better informed or informed enough to realise that they're being screwed (like with TPP) and thus become angry.

Did British officials get bought by Team UPC or just greased up? Did they even check if their promise is fulfillable? It probably isn't. The UPC would be the final blow to the EPO's staff and Battistelli allegedly plans to head the UPC after he burns down the EPO, symbolically pretending to respect the EPC by throwing the boards somewhere at a congested Haar-based office space (more on that another day).

Let's make sure these people don't get their way and that the UPC collapses just like its predecessors (the same thing happened with so-called 'trade' deals whose texts got reused and expanded over time, only to be rejected when the public found out and responded with fury). "May accepts Supremacy of EU law on patents, UK betrayal of Brexit," Henrion wrote. "UK wants to ratify UPC, which is not consistent with Brexit," he wrote on a separate occasion. Well, the UPC is an attack on British democracy itself. May is just surrendering to lawyers who greased up Lucy at al with Battistelli's help. Set up a petition, I told him, inform the public about this case of the EPO bringing its massive abuses to the UK too and he said "it is a question for the Parliament, and let's wake up our companies against this monster."

The Unitary Patent is rejected by SMEs, who are often misrepresented by and misinformed by Team UPC. Writing to a mouthpiece of Team UPC, Henrion suggests they "remember how many companies have signed statements against swpats in the UK?" Selective memory serves them better. They organised pro-UPC lobbying events (we wrote about this during summertime).

"Let's call for a referendum on UPC ratification by the UK. Any UK citizen can start a petition," he said. We are currently working on it. Beside this he said semi-jokingly, "what a shame. Let's ask for a referendum in the UK as well?"

As another person who later weighed in put it: "How can the UK justify handing control of their patent system over to an EU organization after Brexit?"

"So the UK lose all advantages of being part of the EU and leave themselves susceptible to Patent Trolls," this person added, "not smart."

Well, the real British industry (not some parasitic law firms) would suffer a lot if UPC ever became a reality. We just need to explain this to them and convince them to work hard to combat the UPC. Remember that patent trolls are best at extracting money out of small businesses, without even having to take them to court for a trial (because it's potentially very expensive).

The patent "trolls are opening a bottle of champagne today," Henrion noted, having said something similar before ("Patent trolls are opening a bottle of champagne now"). So do their prospective lawyers, who intend to raid Europe with low-quality patents and maximalise the patent tax everywhere in one fell swoop. Many high-profile figures have already explained very clearly why the UPC would good for patent trolls.

"My first thoughts too," an EPO insider wrote about our guesses. "My guess is that Baroness Neville-Rolfe is the culprit here or isn't she?"

We're expected to believe that Brexit would be good for Britain "because the EU not a democracy" (or something along those lines), but things like the IP Bill and these empty UPC promises serve to remind us that the UK is far from a democracy. I met our Prime Minister many years ago and spoke to her in length; she is clueless about technology and although (probably) well-meaning, she does enormous damage by caving in and appeasing patent law firms. Lucy is equally clueless in these domains of science and technology and one EPO insider chose to say, "Battistelli and "La" Baroness Neville-Rolfe inseparable. Love at first sight!"

Neither of them has a clue!

They actually did publicly pose together for photos -- the rare occasion where political people from a large European countries agree to be seen with Battistelli (he's considered "bad neighborhood" now).

As we said before, we welcome and even need leaks. We want to know what preceded this very surprising if not bizarre announcement.

"Notes to editors," it emphasised. "The UPC itself is not an EU institution, it is an international patent court. Includes UK judges..."

They should say "would" in the the announcement, but they want people to assume that the UPC is inevitable, which it is not. Someone truly got bamboozled here and we believe we know the culprits. It's an easy guess, but proof/evidence is required. Following the money here, there is clearly some deeper agenda at play. Photo ops with Battistelli are just a symptom here and one must recall how he buys his way. Only says ago the EPO bragged about (warning: epo.org link) Monaco, which has just 4 EPO patents, playing along with him. This is possibly a case of Battistelli 'buying' votes, but it's hard to know for sure (he sure earned some publicity owing to a 'country' (small city) with just 4 patents). Why would Battistelli and his PR people at Twitter brag about another tiny country (with a vote equal to that of the UK) that he pocketed so cheaply? They're making the monkey business ever more shallow and easy to spot. ⬆