THE UPC spinners issued a misleading statement this afternoon/morning and it took yours truly about 5 hours to upload the above video.
As noted at the start, Team UPC loves painting UPC sceptics/critics/opponents as Russian agents (at least behind the scenes, behind their backs) -- basically baseless, evidence-free smears against complainants who are totally and entirely authentic, concerned citizens who care about their country and continent, as well as for science and technology.
"...Team UPC loves painting UPC sceptics/critics/opponents as Russian agents..."The above video goes through the spin, for half of it is falsehoods (as explained in the video I made 'on the spot', having seen these lies, which are easier and faster to refute that way... verbally or orally). Among the falsehoods: "Unless the FCC throws out the complaints as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded in the short term, it means the ratification of the UPCA in Germany could be delayed severely once more. The first constitutional complaint against UPCA ratification in Germany was filed in March 2017. It took the FCC three years to decide on this complaint, and to partially uphold it, on formal grounds.
"It is not unthinkable that due to new delay in Germany, combined with the departure of the UK from the EU and the Unitary Patent project, which has led to legal uncertainty and has made the UP and UPC less attractive for the industry, the new patent system will never see the light of day."
That's actually untrue (many parts of that) and they abstain from expressing or explaining the full severity of the situation. This is not a "delay" but a death.
"This is not a "delay" but a death."I've meanwhile (whilst uploading the video) noticed this new article. A law firm's Web site said today that the UK "refused to participate in the associated Unitary [sic] Patent Court (UPC)," but it failed to say UPC is dead anyway. It uses a highly misleading term, "IP rights", right there in the headline (this site, Out-Law.com, used to be disguised as a formal news site, even though it was owned by a sort of lobby and a private litigation firm). I explain in the video why this term is meaningless junk and pure propaganda eschewed by real journalists. The video also alludes to this article from yesterday. A person who "has served on the expert panel for the drafting of the rules of procedure for the Unitary [sic] (Unified) Patent Court," it says. This is the UPC which was drafted by patent litigation moles... and is now basically dead. Hours ago I saw another similarly-worded article (second such article in two days, this latter one saying "Europe's unitary patent courts," which is also wrong; they mean "Unified Patent Court"; they don't know what they're talking about and they relay misinformation for litigation agenda). The text of the first says this: "The expiration of the Brexit transition period does not affect the current patent system, which is governed by the European Patent Convention, a non-EU related international treaty. However, prior to Brexit, the UK government formally withdrew from the proposed new European unitary patent system because it refused to participate in the associated Unitary Patent Court (UPC), on the basis that participating "in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the government’s aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation"."
"How far will this lobby go? Who are the casualties?"Notice that this is the third article in two days that says "Unitary Patent Court (UPC)" (which is the wrong name, no such thing exists).
What actually happened to good journalism about patents in Europe? Have Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos blackmailed and bribed anyone who dared ask questions about the EPO and UPC? How far will this lobby go? Who are the casualties? Except truth itself... ⬆