AS we noted here last night, there's an ongoing "campaign of disinformation by Team UPC" (not the same as misinformation). We also mentioned it earlier on the same day. Are these people on the same drugs (or bottles) as Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos? Are they as intellectually corrupt as EPO management? How far will they go? I mean, look at all the comments here and here; they're fooling nobody but themselves, albeit perhaps their target audience is politicians and law-makers, who barely understand patents and would believe anything a 'suit' tells them (many politicians are themselves 'suits' from law firms). Like judges who decide to give patents to "Hey Hi" (AI) or fail to comprehend that software patents are basically a monopoly on mathematics or organised logic...

"...being lawyers, clients might also be in a position to sue them for it (and win in court if malicious intent can be proven in a courtroom)."We didn't wish to do any more articles (or videos) about the UPC, but it's just astounding what they're resorting to -- or the level they stoop down to -- over there at Team UPC lala-land, helped by Joff Wild and his EPO-sponsored propaganda mill. This is the second time in less than a week that IAM's operatives do this, both times behind a paywall (maybe to shelter themselves from critics and fact-checking). I keep getting utterly baffled whenever their headlines show up in my RSS reader; as I put it last night when I saw IAM's latest output, "they've now entered a mode/mindset of just publishing loads of false headlines, hoping this can magically lead to the outcome they want (violating constitutions). There should be regulation against such propaganda campaigns."

I know that's a slippery slope (using the law against deliberate lying), but in this case their goal is to undermine the law and abolish constitutions. By flinging many lies at the wall, hoping that something will stick somewhere. When actual law firms (not publishers) falsely herald ratification by Germany it is a pretty big deal; being lawyers, clients might also be in a position to sue them for it (and win in court if malicious intent can be proven in a courtroom). Suing lawyers isn't easy, especially when they are manipulative liars with deep pockets and connections within the legal system, which begets arrogance if not Hubris. There's tons of cross-pollination there and money can buy outcomes.

My longstanding theory that these pseudonymous blog posts or by-proxy lies are intended, at least in part, as 'insurance' against lawsuits or reputational accountability. Sometimes they even manufacture fake 'rumours' for face-saving PR. ⬆