No financial incentive to accurately cover the facts; distorting the facts is more profitable

Summary: We take another look at the shallow if not deliberately misleading coverage in sites that are literally owned and run by law firms, for the benefit of law firms rather than informing the public

THE credibility of the European Patent Office (EPO) is at stake and definitely at risk due to its misleading "press release" (statement in its "news" section, quoting António Campinos) about the UPC/A after the decision in Germany. The career of Battistelli is likely over; he'll never be in 'unitary' anything and he's rapidly aging in the country with some of the highest death tolls right now (for that age group).

"The way we see it, UPC/UP/UPCA was a dying thing or a zombie for 3 or 4 years, either due to Brexit, the complaint in Germany, or both. Team UPC just couldn't get itself to admit this."But what about the credibility of publishers and law firms, notably mouthpieces of Team UPC and leading proponents of UPC, who often themselves participated in drafting the UPC/A? We want to ensure that people know the full story and can look back at what was said after the UPC had died. The first major blow was in February (UK) and the second in March (Germany). There were many other, albeit somewhat smaller, blows in prior years. The way we see it, UPC/UP/UPCA was a dying thing or a zombie for 3 or 4 years, either due to Brexit, the complaint in Germany, or both. Team UPC just couldn't get itself to admit this.

A few months ago Patrick Wingrove at Managing IP 'entrapped' Justice Huber, giving rise to a bunch of false reports about how the complaint would be dismissed (how wrong were they!) and these charlatans in rigged media (de facto lobbyists of Team UPC) continue to show their true face. This week alone one can see Wingrove et al assessing and ranking litigation venues (places in the US) based on how much blackmail and harassment goes on there. It's like the Army rating/ranking countries by how many bombs it drops on them.

Anyway, this is consistent with what we've pointed out for years. The litigation giants run a lot of the media, directly or indirectly, telling us endless lies about the UPC. Now, in April 2020, one can look at all the lies they told over the years. Their misleading articles are still online.

"The litigation giants run a lot of the media, directly or indirectly, telling us endless lies about the UPC."Now, one might expect them to stop lying, seeing that the UPC hit the final wall. But no...

The media in the pockets of Team UPC -- just like Team UPC itself -- will carry on lying to us.

Since we've mentioned Managing IP, which is in the pockets of the EPO and Team UPC, let's consider Wingrove's colleague (Max), who used to write for Law Gazette. How many people even know who owns Law Gazette? It's a misleading title/name; it makes it look like some official and independent journal. We wrote about it before and it's clearly a privately-owned propaganda platform, where the main writer is now Michael Cross.

Want to see what Law Gazette published through Michael? Let's start with this article that said "decade-long attempt to create a unitary patent and enforcing court across European states appeared finally dead last night when Germany’s highest federal court ruled that the decision to join it had been taken unconstitutionally. Following the UK's indication that it would not participate as planned, this means that two of the three required lead jurisdictions have pulled out."

"Michael Cross, to be fair to him, hasn't done a totally bad job."Only France is in; Battistelli is all on his own.

Michael Cross, to be fair to him, hasn't done a totally bad job. He has been a little more balanced than most, but he soon followed with some puff pieces like this one, which is spin: "A German ruling to void membership of the Unified Patent Court highlights the fragility of supranational institutions. But is the UK ready to take advantage of this window of opportunity?"

Well, the UK already has its own patent system and for a number of years we've heard rumours that the UK might also quit the EPC (hence the EPO).

Michael Cross later also changed the headline of the published article. "News focus: A court too far?" became "Unified Patent Court impasse - what now?" with a different URL, but the content is the same (there might be more articles, but we found 3 on this topic, including this duplicate).

"Well, the UK already has its own patent system and for a number of years we've heard rumours that the UK might also quit the EPC (hence the EPO).""In itself," the article says, "the ruling does not kill the UPC or the Unitary Patent it is supposed to regulate."

No, Michael Cross. It does actually. It doesn't explicitly say so, but common sense and basic understanding of the process would lead to the obvious conclusion. Do you await an officially-issued death certificate?

"Stop spinning for your employer," I wrote, "the law firm which owns the publisher..."

"Speaking of law firms as publishers, this is exactly what IP Kat became and it worries us greatly because IP Kat used to be a prominent critic of EPO management."When Max more or less ran the site he did a mostly OK work. He was relatively balanced and he spoke to EPO critics as well. Michael Cross is a step in the wrong direction. The articles mention no critics of the UPC, only Team UPC talking points and even the Law Society president (quoting one's own boss!). If these people wish to undertake journalism seriously, then they must also speak to people whose agenda is different from the employer's (a law firm).

Speaking of law firms as publishers, this is exactly what IP Kat became and it worries us greatly because IP Kat used to be a prominent critic of EPO management. The people who ran IP Kat a few years ago are no longer there (almost everyone left), leaving a vacuum filled by litigation firms and virtually no scholars. The EPO coverage almost always comes from AstraZenecas's (Big Pharma) legal department.

"So now they do ads for patent and copyright maximalists."The other day in IP Kat we saw Magdaleen Jooste giving a platform to 4iP Council, a major part of Team UPC. "4iP Council launched a practical interactive web guide," it says," 4 Reasons 4 Copyright. The guide helps innovative European businesses to understand the strategic value of copyright as an intellectual property tool. The four key benefits of copyright, namely: competitive edge, reputation, collaboration and funding, are discussed in the guide. Get more information here."

So now they do ads for patent and copyright maximalists. Front groups. As we pointed out very early in this series, the only coverage of the FCC's decision at IP Kat was Team UPC puff pieces. It was almost as though Team UPC 'runs' the blog. This once-courageous blog turned from critic to booster of UPC, including spin of it (even megaphone of Team UPC/Hoying!). "Anonymous" wrote three Fridays ago:

Dear Mr Hoying,

Start reading the decision of the FCC before uttering the expectation that it might be possible to "try to draft a text that would make it possible for European Economic Area countries and perhaps even other countries to join".

The FCC has made it abundantly clear: the UPC is only open to EU member states. If the UPC is not yet fully dead, the EPLA is!

Benjamin Henrion then said: "The Court also trashed the way UPC's Rules of Procedure [...] Mr Ramsay will have to look for another job?"

Here's the full comment:

The Court also trashed the way UPC's Rules of Procedure were made by this unelected Administrative Committee without parliamentary involvement:

"UPC rules of procedure were enacted by the Administrative Committee, whereby Art41 did not provide for parliamentary participation as the relevant legal basis in this respect and did not contain any express authorization for the UPC judges to undertake fundamental rights."

Mr Ramsay will have to look for another job?

Maybe there were more comments, but the blog censors some (usually those that don't favour Team UPC or EPO management). So only the above pair of comments can be seen, both hostile towards the original post (but not hostile enough to be deleted).

In another thread in the same blog a retired attorney wrote:

Yes, I am glad we are both well. The times might already be, as you say, "difficult" but they are going to get a whole lot more "difficult" before they get better. Let us hope that debating patent law, while confined at home, achieves something useful to all of us.

Times are only difficult for Team UPC. For people who are busy remote-working (e.g. coding) life will be better now because risk of being sued is vastly reduced. ⬆