TEAM UPC hopes that the UPC will bring software patents to Europe. But the UPCA is so hopeless a legislation that even the António Campinos-led European Patent Office (EPO) says almost nothing about it. Sure, Campinos continues to allow software patents regardless, but courts (not UPC) would strike them out. These are essentially bogus patents just waiting to be invalidated and we'll say more about them in the next post.
"It's barely even an attempt to appear like journalism."Media in the area of patents is notoriously bad. We have given many examples over the years. The patenting and litigation 'industry', for example, was piggybacking Halloween last week in order to sell "products" (wasteful "services"). It's barely even an attempt to appear like journalism.
Then consider this week's long article by Patrick Wingrove (Managing IP), advertising a troll as a “massive time and money saver” right there in the headline. This is how a publication of British patent lawyers covers a patent troll (Unwired Planet, which is the latest name of several) that operates in the UK. "Large telecommunications and automotive companies have told Managing IP that they are pleased by the recent Unwired Planet v Huawei judgement," it says, "because it will streamline licensing and give price certainty in negotiating licences for standard essential patents (SEPs)."
"Publications that call themselves "Law" something or "IP" something tend to be written by and/or for lawyers."They spoke to a bunch of lawyers. How typical.
Last week we mentioned Law Gazette because of its recent misleading article (coverage that speaks only of lawyers, but not anybody else) regarding the UPC. They keep reaffirming the view that Law Gazette acts as propaganda rag for Team UPC. "The UPC enjoys wide support among business and lawyers," it has just said. What "business"? Which businesses? Law firms. The lawyers like the UPC because its foundational core lets them blackmail British companies (through trolls like the above). Here's the relevant part, which quotes pretty much nobody who actually produces anything:
But further complications surround the implementation of the unitary patent, and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) which was due to start at beginning of 2017 (see p6, News). This could lead the UK to withdraw from a pan-European system that will allow businesses to use a single patent (rather than a basket of national patents) and a single court to protect their rights, similarly to EU trade marks and community designs.
The UPC enjoys wide support among business and lawyers. In February, Law Society president Joe Egan wrote to IP minister Sam Gyimah to urge the government to ratify the UPC agreement, or UPCA, and in April the government did so. The UKIPO said: ‘The unique nature of the proposed court means that the UK’s future relationship with the Unified Patent Court will be subject to negotiation with European partners as we leave the EU.’
The court is an odd creature in that the agreement to establish it is governed by the EPC, a non-EU treaty. Yet it is not open to states outside the EU (25 EU countries have signed it; Spain, Croatia and Poland have not). Furthermore, the unitary patent system is established by EU regulations. Therefore, as Harris puts it: ‘The UPCA is an agreement under the aegis of the EU.’ In fact, article 21 of the agreement says: ‘Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the court.’