03.29.20
Gemini version available ♊︎The Fall of the UPC – Part IX: Campinos Opens His Mouth One Week Later (and It’s That Hilarious Delusion Again)
The funny thing? Even Team UPC isn’t buying the spiel of António Campinos, deputy clown of wannabe UPC chief.
Summary: Team Campinos said nothing whatsoever about the decision of the FCC until one week later, whereupon Campinos leveraged some words from Christine Lambrecht to mislead everybody in the EPO’s official “news” section
THE European Patent Office (EPO) is definitely and undoubtedly a constant source of fury but also an occasional, part-time source of entertainment and amusement because amid all the scandals there are cover-up attempts and hollow face-saving ambitions that verge on black comedy. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but humour is the best medicine when corruption is neither pretty nor funny.
In the previous part (part 8) we covered Team UPC’s shameless spin. It painted the UPC’s death as “life” and bad news (to them) as “actually good news in disguise” or something along those lines. Psychologists and psychiatrists leverage if not ‘prescribe’ such methods.
“Psychologists and psychiatrists leverage if not ‘prescribe’ such methods.”Over at Bristows, the latest blog post is Gregory Bacon’s spin that says: “Although the complaint regarding the Bundestag majority was held to be admissible, that was only by the narrowest majority of the Senate’s eight Justices, i.e. five votes to three.”
Like athletes who say, “I lost only by two seconds.”
Courts don’t work that way. The decision doesn’t come with a “score”.
“Yeah, Johnny, I lost the case, but some people in the jury liked me… see you when I get out of prison!”
It is definitely worth noting that the EPO (management, President, Vice Presidents) waited silently for whole week and abstained from saying anything at all about this blow in the FCC (Team UPC keeps breaking the law) until some lying politician opened the mouth and was possible to quote selectively. EPO management never looked this desperate.
“It is definitely worth noting that the EPO (management, President, Vice Presidents) waited silently for whole week and abstained from saying anything at all about this blow in the FCC…”For those who missed it (this did not receive much publicity), in the German language Christine Lambrecht wrote this little page and the EPO jumped all over it, tweeting the sheer spin of Campinos (warning: epo.org link) as though it is “news”. To quote:
The European Patent Office (EPO) strongly welcomes the announcement of the German government to continue its support for the introduction of the Unitary Patent system in Europe.
In a statement made yesterday on the country’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection Christine Lambrecht expressed her intention to “carefully evaluate the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and examine possibilities to remedy the identified lack of form still in the current legislative period.”
The EPO’s official “news” section has increasingly become a platform of propaganda. For a whole week nothing at all was said about the FCC’s decision. And now this from Christine Lambrecht?
They don’t even pretend to be objective. The above is a bunch of nonsense (quotes) from Campinos. He’s ‘pulling a Battistelli’ again. He’s neither honest nor good. He’s a charlatan and a fraud.
Even biased lawyers who run IP Kat (not the old site called IP Kat; it changed) have just reiterated the nature of this decision, saying “this decision will set the UPC back 5 years!”
“They don’t even pretend to be objective.”Magdaleen Jooste wrote: “The German constitutional court upholds complaint against UPC Agreement and implementing act! Read the decision here. It is reported that this decision will set the UPC back 5 years! The main reason for the decision was that the act by which Germany was to ratify the UPC Agreement, was not passed with the required parliamentary majority. Léon Dijkman provided a detailed analysis of the decision by the German constitutional court.”
We probably won’t quote many comments from that blog anymore; IP Kat censors many comments, ‘sanitising’ views it does not agree with because they don’t share the agenda of today’s IP Kat editors.
Anyway, the above “news” from the EPO site makes it rather clear that the “clean” EPO management (Campinos and his mates from EUIPO) is still looking to break the law and violate countless constitutions. It cherry-picks polticians that it selectively cites like a one-party military-turned-state North Korea.
If this does not repulse patent examiners, we wonder what will…
My friend Benjamin Henrion translated Lambrecht as saying: “I will continue to work to ensure that we can provide the European innovative industry with a single European patent with a European patent court.”
You cannot.
“Anyway, Lambrecht may wear something that says “Europe” on her lapel or sleeve. She might also wave a bunch of yellow-blue flags, but clearly Lambrecht misses the point. What Europe needs is a lot more than shallow rhetoric — the type of thing EPO staff has grown tired of.”“Well, Chinese and American industries as well,” Henrion remarked, for “2/3 of patents in Europe are given to them…”
“Most of their “clients” aren’t European. It’s a class (monopoly) thing, not a regional thing,” I told him
Just because the “E” in EPO says “European” doesn’t mean it works for Europe and for Europeans. It employs many, sure, but whose agenda does their work serve? Usually very rich people’s. No, not rich Europeans. Just rich people. Corporations. Multinationals. Monsanto, Exxon, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon…
Huawei untrustworthy? Serving the Chinese military? Danger to Europe? Guess who receives the most European Patents…
Anyway, Lambrecht may wear something that says “Europe” on her lapel or sleeve. She might also wave a bunch of yellow-blue flags, but clearly Lambrecht misses the point. What Europe needs is a lot more than shallow rhetoric — the type of thing EPO staff has grown tired of. Trampling on workers — and on all people — in the name of “unity” won’t make people more united; it might unite them against those who misuse those shiny labels in the service of goals that crush human rights.
Team UPC megaphones absolutely adore Lambrecht for what she said. JUVE is among them. JUVE reinvented itself as lying propaganda and we’ll say a lot more about JUVE’s role in UPC lobbying later in this ongoing series. As Henrion put it: “German Ministry of Justice keeps pushing for the UPC, JUVE interprets it as “Bundestag will vote again” https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/032620_Patentreform.html … https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/legal-commentary/german-government-announces-intention-to-move-forward-with-upc/ … This is not possible as Rules of Procedure are not made by parliament(s).”
“We’ll have a lot more to say about JUVE’s poor coverage later in this series.”True, it is not possible. If anything, this serves to show that the German Ministry of Justice does not understand the law. Yes, the irony. One might expect this from Donald Trump’s USDOJ, not Germany’s Ministry of Justice.
JUVE’s editor tweeted: “UPC latest: just six days after the judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the German government announces its intention to move forward with the Unified Patent Court.”
Did you fact-check, JUVE?
We’ll have a lot more to say about JUVE’s poor coverage later in this series.
What’s being suggested here is illegal and there would be further complaints against overt corruption. This, we might add, might be expected from Donald Trump. Are his grandfather’s relatives still in Germany and getting involved in such reckless politics based upon will and dogma rather than underlying laws and a constitution? Does the FCC have its authority diminished to mere “advisory”?
It’s not only us pointing this out by the way; “Kluwer Patent blogger” (oftentimes Bristows) published “Despite FCC ruling, Germany wants to push ahead with Unitary Patent system” and tweeted this bunch of nonsense only to be blasted in the comments, as usual. Immediately one person wrote: “And don’t forget the Rules of Procedure made by an administrative committee, which is contrary to the caselaw of the FCC, and caselaw of the ECHR on art6.”
“Even Team UPC boosters don’t quite buy the laughable spiel of Campinos and Christine Lambrecht; nor should they if they choose to become grown-ups and realistic rather than jingoistic self-serving liars.”“Concerned observer” wrote: “From the Ministry that brought you the late night shenanigans that ultimately killed the law approving the UPCA we are now served up a new strategy that has all the makings of another farce.
“Why prolong the agony and uncertainty? Why not state the obvious and acknowledge that, at the very least, the first step that will need to be taken is renegotiation and amendment of the UPCA? What is to be gained by not admitting that it will take more than just another vote in the Bundestag?
“Deeply disappointing.”
A vocal UPC booster in Munich quoted: “So a simple re-run of the previous approval law with the same UPCA text will not work. It would most probably also be contrary to EU law if Germany were to ratify an agreement that transfers sovereign rights (part of its jurisdiction)to an international court that is currently/2 https://twitter.com/kluwerblogger/status/1243477267629641728 […] partly located outside the EU and in a state which has explicitly declared that it is not minded to follow EU law and does not want to be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU.“
Even Team UPC boosters don’t quite buy the laughable spiel of Campinos and Christine Lambrecht; nor should they if they choose to become grown-ups and realistic rather than jingoistic self-serving liars. No, UPC isn’t for “SMEs” and it was never designed for them, either. The exact opposite is true. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA