04.12.15
European Unitary Patent Decision Due 5th of May
Serving the top of the top 1%
Summary: The meta-industry of patent protectionism is debating and pushing forth the Unitary Patent Court, with or without endorsement from the European public
The UPC, or “Unipat”, or Unitary Patent Court (it has former names), is the culmination of systemic corruption inside the EPO and around it. It is almost as bad as TPP, whereby corporate power is increased, especially the power of those who are already super-wealthy. Call it class war, or land grab, or passage of wealth, that’s what it’s really all about. Europe is historically viewed as not so corruptible, at least not as much as various other countries. It’s this false perception that guards the EPO and lets is get away with many abuses. European citizens should be extremely concerned about what the EPO is doing right now, even if they don’t quiet grasp the impact. EPO staff is dying and the EPO’s management does not (or no longer) exists to serve Europe and its citizens, despite them subsidising it through tax. The EPO is rogue. It’s working for multinationals, or the richest 1% of the world’s population. This isn’t what the patent system should be about.
“If ECJ does not get rid of the discriminatory language of the Unipat,” writes the FFII’s President, “we have to look at enforcing ECHR prot12, [in] only some countries.”
“ECJ [is] to publish its decision on the Unitary Patent next 5th May,” he adds, repeating what IP Magazine stated: “Spanish challenge to UPC handed down by CJEU on 5 May” (Spain has historically resisted the UPC more than other member states).
James Love attended the Fordham IP Conference (#fordhamip) the other day and he wrote that “Rt. Hon. Prof. Sir Robin Jacob (lots of titles) giving very aggressive attack on patent critics at #fordhamip ”
Robin Jacob was mentioned here very recently in relation to EPO scandals. “Not surprisingly,” Love added, “the speakers at the #fordhamip panel on China represent IP right holders.”
“Mark Cohen [was] at #fordhamip,” Love wrote. “Senior Counsel for USPTO’s China team. Formerly the director of IP policy at Microsoft.”
Yes, Microsoft.
“John Temple Lang expresses concern that in UPC injunction cases, public interest not specifically relevant,” Love wrote, continuing with: “#fordhamip panel on the European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court expressing a lot of concern over competence of Judges.”
“Paul England now explaining areas where Unitary Patent Court will have to resolve thorny issues regarding jurisdiction of laws,” he wrote.
It sure looks like without any explicit consent (or referendum) from scientists and the wider European population, patent lawyers and other profiteers in this system of artificial protectionism are driving policy, at least not in secret (Love is an opponent of such people, so he came there to observe and report). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA