THE press coverage about the death of the UPC is starting to end. Much of it came on Friday and Monday. As for tweets? Well, not many of them anymore. It's settled anyway. The record is settled. But Team UPC is still trying to distort it and litigation firms keep lying about what happened and what will happen next. We'll keep this series running until, inevitably, things are quiet or "mum". It might take a while, maybe spilling onto April.
"We'll keep this series running until, inevitably, things are quiet or "mum"."So let's start with some accurate coverage, coming from people who actually work in technology as opposed to litigation. Yesterday we saw the article "Double Blow To The EU's Long-Delayed Unified Patent Court, But Supporters Unlikely To Give Up" (accurate summary). The opening paragraph says:
Remember the EU's unitary patent plan? No surprise if you don't -- attempts to create a unitary patent system across the region have been dragging on for decades. Back in 2012, Techdirt noted that the European Parliament had finally approved the plan to set up a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the EU, but it still hasn't come to fruition. Recently, the scheme has been dealt two major blows that are likely to delay it further, even if they don't kill it off entirely.
"In its current incarnation it's dead (where death means no more attempts; they need a reboot/respawn) and there's no guarantee that it will ever materialise. Ever."In a site of Team UPC, lobbyist and booster of Team UPC for a number of years, an author who already admitted the death (in Twitter at least) speaks of "UPC ‘soul searching’". Max Walters summarises: "Lawyers across Europe say the UPC project could be open to future challenges even if the German parliament meets the required two-thirds majority" (the rest is behind a paywall).
Many, many barriers exist, including those inside the complaint. There are further complaints waiting to be submitted/filed shall the need arise.
It's worth noting that another UPC propagandist ("JUVE Patent") has just promoted this myth: “This formal objection can be eliminated by a new vote with a two-thirds majority. Fortunately, the Federal Constitutional Court has rejected all factual objections to the constitutional complaint as inadmissible or unfounded.”
No, it did not!
As Benjamin Henrion put it, "they read the decision as only the 2/3 majority problem..."
Well, here they lie again and JUVE keeps printing these lines.
As Shawn put it in our IRC channel, "if they don't agree with you, change history, great tactic..."
Are they going to start repeating this lie for years to come?
"Well, here they lie again and JUVE keeps printing these lines."Well, if they do and whenever they do we shall call out the liars.
Here's what another UPC propagandist wrote in Twitter: "Reading German Constitutional Court decision, the UPC is not dead but is on life support. Question is whether the will exists to revive it. Right now, that’s very doubtful."
Life support?
What does that even mean?
"When the EPO's PR firm pays you to lie for the UPC," I responded to them, "and advocate the UPC you call corpses "technically alive" (maintaining the lie to maintain one's income)..."
I was referring to IAM taking money from the EPO's PR firm to promote the UPC worldwide. It's no secret that EPO money corrupts the media and Team UPC relies heavily on bribed and/or infiltrated media. This is a problem we touched on in previous parts. It's like a separate, albeit big, issue. There are several aspects to it, e.g. media taking bribes, media taken over by law firms, and media selectively quoting only particular law firms with a particular agenda. Bristows LLP does this a lot. Gregory Bacon (Bristows) responded to the decision on Friday with "German Constitutional Court upholds UPC complaint"
This title is correct, for a change (they typically lie a lot), but the rest is a lie. His colleague Brian Cordery (Bristows) was meanwhile pushing injunction agenda in the UK by reprinting for Katie Cambrook and Ben Millson. They hope for and want lots of injunctions (embargoes) in their aggressive UPC. So they don't care about underlying facts.
"There are several aspects to it, e.g. media taking bribes, media taken over by law firms, and media selectively quoting only particular law firms with a particular agenda."As Benjamin Henrion put is on the day: "There will be calls to mod the German Constitution to make it UPC compatible "Any conferral of judicial functions on international courts modifies this comprehensive allocation of jurisdiction and, is an amendment of the Constitution in substantive terms" https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-020.html …"
Let's change the dog to match the tail?
Over at WIPR (World Intellectual Property Review) there was yet more of the typical lying or embellishments. It is a marketing/spam/PR site, which once upon a time did actual journalism (e.g. about EPO abuses). Is it still a news site? Consider this as a new example.
How is this "news" and not an ad?
WIPR's business model is bare and naked for all to see.
It's neither news nor information.
Here's their opening tweet from Friday: "NEWSFLASH: German court deals hammer blow to UPC. The German Federal Constitutional Court has upheld the constitutional complaint filed against the country’s Unified Patent Court legislation."
True, and here's the corresponding article. But watch the content. What is this, a joke?
Henrion quoted from there: "Gordon Harris, global co-head of IP at Gowling WLG, says that it is almost “inconceivable” that this will go back before the German parliament until that renegotiation process is complete.”
"Over at WIPR (World Intellectual Property Review) there was yet more of the typical lying or embellishments.""No kidding," Henrion remarked.
Misframing the issue to add a loaded statement? "Team UPC is a pathetic bunch of self-important liars," I told him. How long can the lies go on for?
Another shameless lie, a Big lie, was quoted here based on another WIPR article: "Yet, that does not change anything about the fact that most of industry is rightly in favour of the system even without the UK, and time for improvements isn’t a bad thing, is it?"
"Time to prepare the next phase," Henrion responded, suggesting "thousand of companies [rally] against the UPC..."
Will these publishers pay attention? They almost never quote actual companies as opposed to law firms which claim to speak for companies (and deliberately misrepresent these).
They're paid to lie. Lying is their occupation.
Here's what WIPR tweeted on the above article: "UPC analysis: is a UK 'litigation hub' on the horizon? Today’s decision from Germany may herald the end of the Unified Patent Court, but UK litigators are looking forward to the opportunities."
"Sooner or later someone from the EPO will say something and one can be pretty certain this will be a lie, supported only by the above publications which lie deliberately."Litigators. That's it.
Because the UK has nothing but litigators in it, right? No actual companies. Just lawyers!
Lobbying for the UK to become a haven for patent trolls and failing to see how evil that is, sites like WIPR actively work to undermine real British companies.
António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli have still not said a thing, nor has the EPO. Total silence.
Sooner or later someone from the EPO will say something and one can be pretty certain this will be a lie, supported only by the above publications which lie deliberately. ⬆