READERS keep telling us (even today) that patent quality at the EPO is farcical. It's not the fault of examiners but the fault of their superiors, who threaten them with unemployment (for 'daring' to do their job like they're supposed to). We can relate to the problem as we have covered similar scenarios (elsewhere) over the years.

"The only 'businesses' that are guaranteed to profit are litigation firms, even if (or especially if) the litigation is frivolous."The EPO, based on this new press release, grants yet more controversial and low quality patents while working to make litigation easier and harsher (UPC). Who benefits from that? Certainly not the average European business. The only 'businesses' that are guaranteed to profit are litigation firms, even if (or especially if) the litigation is frivolous. They would profit from both sides of a legal dispute over patents.

Here in Techrights we have been amicable and oftentimes collaborative with other sites that covered EPO scandals, including IP Kat, so we are deeply disturbed to see what this blog has become lately. We have begun joking that Bristows has managed to 'buy' the blog, so to speak. The past 7 posts in the blog, for example, are all composed by Bristows staff (this is the latest) and it's just self promotion like this: "The IPKat's own Annsley Merelle Ward (a.k.a. the Amerikat) eloquently introduced the philosophical question: is there an existential crisis in the equilibrium between patent filings and trade secrets? She noted that various commentators from industry have suggested an increased trend for a preference for trade secrets, leading to a decrease in innovation."

"So they hope that the British government will change the law too, in order to accommodate the UPC, even when British companies oppose it?"She is talking about "innovation" while not practicing/championing any and also while promoting UPC and software patents. Who are these people kidding? It's an echo chamber-like event that we have scrutinised here over the years [1, 2], even 7 years ago.

Responding to the part about UPC (echoing Battistelli's paid-for liars), one person tackled the issue of changing national laws for Battistelli and his ilk by stating: "Regarding Unitary Patents: Couldn't the UK Government simply legislate unilaterally to recognise the effect of Unitary Patents in the UK? No agreement with the EU or official negotiation of an agreement under Article 142 EPC required?"

So they hope that the British government will change the law too, in order to accommodate the UPC, even when British companies oppose it? All that latest propaganda from Bristows serves to reinforce our accusations from last year. Another new comment said: "And so, the summary is?? It's hard to tell whether the 'oh, it'll be alright' is knowledge, blind optimism or desperation. CH and NO seem to be complicated whereas UK is tootling along nicely (although it is still complicated?). I'm lost. 2017? 2018? 2019?..."

"It probably won't be long before Bristows posts another IP Kat analysis spinning the General Election as "good" news for UPC."And soon they'll say 2020, 2021...

It probably won't be long before Bristows posts another IP Kat analysis spinning the General Election as "good" news for UPC. Maybe they're still working/figuring out on how to construct such a lie. Remember that infamous lie about SMEs? Or Bristows' latest spin about UPC and trolls?

Linking to pro-UPC sites, UPC proponents in Germany state: "Don't you have a constitutional discontinuity principle in the #U.K.? Meaning: after elections all legislative processes are reset? We have."

"Remember the swpat [software patents] directive," Benjamin Henrion responded, "it was discussed to reset the directive because they don€´t have it at the EU level."

"It's a lobbying strategy, designed to seduce if not actively pressure politicians to ratify. We have seen this strategy in action for over half a decade now."They are going to try all sorts of workarounds to ensure that they can maintain the charade of UPC being "inevitable", "unstoppable", "just a matter of time" or whatever (all lies).

In the above, Mark Richardson should say "call off", not delay, but for those in the business of legal attacks the UPC means a lot of money so they still pretend that the UPC is bound to happen sooner or later. That's patently false. It's a lobbying strategy, designed to seduce if not actively pressure politicians to ratify. We have seen this strategy in action for over half a decade now. It's truly a classic! ⬆