12.08.16
Memo “Deliberately Leaked to Cover up the UPC” With Its Many Associated Issues Amid Brexit
Information still required on why Lucy did the unthinkable
Summary: Some eye-opening updates about the awkward move from Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who made promises (expression of intent) she can neither fulfill nor justify to the British public
THE EPO scandals are so broad and diverse that it’s becoming hard to keep track of them all. What’s also not helping is Battistelli’s latest distractions (warning: epo.org link) which are amplified by the PR team (never ever mentioning anything related to these remarkable scandals, thus leaving applicants in the dark). The real news isn’t some photo op of Battistelli in Belgium (same thing he did with Neville-Rolfe in England to distract from the real news -- a strike!) but unprecedented abuses against staff — a subject we’ll cover separately.
Recently, Battistelli and media which he had paid were spreading misleading talking points (or utter lies) about the UPC. These set the tone for yet more misleading coverage. See this new misleading headline, which is a statement that is untrue and compare this to “Brexit’s Effect on UK Unitary Patent System and Court” — an article that says “UK government intends to ratify the Unitary Patent System and the Unified Patent Court prior to Brexit.”
“The real news isn’t some photo op of Battistelli in Belgium (same thing he did with Neville-Rolfe in England to distract from the real news — a strike!) but unprecedented abuses against staff — a subject we’ll cover separately.”We wrote a very long series about this last week and earlier this week. The UPC won’t happen. Brexit has made the UPC practically impossible, if not just in Britain then in the entire EU (and beyond). Basically, sooner or later there’s the conflict they’re trying to stay blind to, as we explained before (especially in parts 6 and 7 of our series). Valea AB wrote at the end of last month (just bumped up again in news feeds) that “UK Government Confirms it is Proceeding with Ratification of the UPC,” but actually it was only an expression of intent and nothing formal or a legally-binding commitment. It’s truly a shame that a lot of media, not just law firms' biased media, continues to get the story wrong.
A story which was mentioned here in the latest couple of parts (in the section about MIP’s pro-UPC events) reveals one of the reasons the UPC is a horrible idea. Software patents are currently not permitted in Europe, yet experts said that the UPC would likely change that. In fact, as Benjamin Henrion noticed, based on an admission from a British law firm, lawyers too understand that. “Will Cook (Marks&Clerk) noted that first movers may be able to shape UPC jurisprudence in these fields [ICT/software],” he wrote today. “Maureen Kinsler (Marks&Clerk),” he continued, is quoted as saying that “It’s probably easier to get a software-related patent in the EPO than in the US now” (look what crooked Battistelli has done, causing potentially huge damage to Europe’s software industry).
“As we said repeatedly last week, we are eager to receive leaks pertaining to why Lucy did what she did regarding the UPC.”“Interesting read about behind-the-curtain rumours regarding the UK announcement,” wrote one comment in IP Kat, linking to this valuable and belated blog post about something we sure wondered about. The title is “The UK and UPC: is the UK trying to have its cake and eat it?”
“Incidentally,” says the author, “the “accidental” leaking of the “Have cake” memo sounds like a plot straight out of The Thick Of It and therefore, I would venture, probably means it was anything but accidental. It’s a leap too far to suggest it was deliberately leaked to cover up the UPC news (patents are way down the agenda) but that seems to have been the effect nevertheless.”
Read the whole thing. As we said repeatedly last week, we are eager to receive leaks pertaining to why Lucy did what she did regarding the UPC. Certainly some people out there have access to this information; we can be contacted securely and anonymously and we have never compromised a source (in over ten years). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA