Monopolies aren't typically innovative either (they don't need to be as there's no competition)

Nightmare Before Christmas Lawsuits

Summary: Patent maximalists at the European Patent Office (EPO) keep crossing swords with judges, who are merely trying to uphold the law by limiting/restricting the scope of patents so as to be rational and uphold public interest

THE fall of the UPC is hard for lawyers to digest, let alone grasp (many are still in denial about the whole thing). Patent lawyers wanted to redo the whole legal system their own way, assisted by nontechnical EPO chiefs like António Campinos and the other Mafioso. In the USPTO they've managed to get Iancu in charge, charging against 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 and then celebrating it. It's about lowering the patent bar and getting all sorts of ridiculous patents -- including on maths -- past the sieve. It turns out that earlier this week Paul R. Michel spread his agenda not only in Watchtroll but also Roll Call, exploiting the pandemic to push for legalisation of illegal patents. Have former judges become lobbyists? For a lot more lawsuits rather than justice or innovation?

Watch the image (ad/banner) below. Does it seem reasonable to anyone that crooked EPO staff from Team Battistelli pushes for software patents in the United States along with a former judge (right next to him on the left), in a site controlled by shameless patent zealots looking for a quick buck? What have these people sunk to?

They're all basically protesting against the highest US court (SCOTUS) because they want to impose on all of us patents on mathematics. For their personal gain.

"Have former judges become lobbyists? For a lot more lawsuits rather than justice or innovation?"William Fry's Carol Plunkett, Charleen O’Keeffe, Laura Scott, Laura Casey and John Sugrue are distorting the record if not lying when they say that the UPC "has received strong support from sectors of industry..." (in William Fry's Web site, copied into Lexology for broader reach this week)

Which industry? Litigation? The people who drafted this darn thing?

For decades European countries have discussed the creation of a European Unified Patent Court ("UPC") which would consist of a single court with branches across Europe. The UPC system would also allow innovators to opt for a new European patent with unitary effect across the Member States of the EU, instead of the existing European patent which consists of a bundle of national patent rights, enforceable locally.

It is a project that has received strong support from sectors of industry and legal practitioners alike. However, it is not a stranger to challenges. The UPC's progress has suffered repeated delays as previously reported by us here. Now, a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court has dealt the UPC a further blow.

Notice how these people keep using words like "delays", belittling the severity of this whole situation to keep hope alive, basically hoping that momentum/inertia can be maintained based on misinformation. ⬆