04.09.20
Gemini version available ♊︎The Fall of the UPC – Part XVII: Bardehle Pagenberg in ‘Corona Zombie’ Mode
Unable to properly judge reality
Summary: Gymnastics in logic and outright lies told by Bardehle Pagenberg, which spent endless time and money trying to pass the UPC(A) for its patent-trolling clients
SO IN part 16 we mentioned the lies from Winfried Tilmann and his colleagues. Tilman Müller-Stoy has a similar name, similar role in UPC propaganda, but he works for massive boosters of software patents in Europe and patent trolls. It’s their “client base…”
This is like Team UPC ‘proper’; the ‘perpetrators’ of this scam, those looking to benefit the most from their own ‘coup’. Team Campinos/Battistelli at the European Patent Office (EPO) is in bed with them, maybe even literally because of growing gender diversity in this occupation/field.
“This is like Team UPC ‘proper’; the ‘perpetrators’ of this scam, those looking to benefit the most from their own ‘coup’.”So the other day the firm (Bardehle Pagenberg) tweeted about its own employee: “#IPNews: Read the comments by our partner Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy and our Senior Consultant Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher on today’s UPC-related decision by @BVerfG: https://www.bardehle.com/fileadmin/Webdata/contentdocuments/ip_reports/20200312_COMMENT_UPC_Brexit_TMS_TER_EN.pdf … #intellectualproperty #Brexit #GermanPatentLaw #UPC [...]”
Yes, it is a PDF. One response we saw to it said: “I guess you miss the most important point: whether the CJEU has a say in patent law, notably software patents #monastry #isolation #silence #patent #law [...]”
But let’s have a closer look at what they said — as predictable as it was given their appalling track record. Hardly a new subject here…
“…let’s have a closer look at what they said — as predictable as it was given their appalling track record.”Some time before the decision from the FCC even these patent zealots and UPC conspirators admitted that the UPC was likely dead already. That was because of Britain’s position, which was shared with the media in late February. Back then even patent maximalists like Bardehle Pagenberg’s Tilman Müller-Stoy and Rudolf Teschemacher already knew it was a lost cause. They even published in a number of sites for patent maximalists some piece about a “Plan B”. From their original in their own site:
What will become of the European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court after the United Kingdom has declared its withdrawal? Is everything over now or do we proceed? And if we do, how?
So many questions, so few answers. They just didn’t want to state the facts, not out loud and directly anyway.
Weeks later it got a lot worse. If it wasn’t already bad enough…
“We wrote some rebuttal to those sorts of lies (illogical nonsense) in previous parts.”Tilman Müller-Stoy and Rudolf Teschemacher (quite senior at Bardehle Pagenberg) then belittled if not lied about the UPC’s death, with a title that made one believe it’s just a little obstacle. They’ve lied all along, so why stop now? The vague title said “Comments On UPC Announcement Of The German Constitutional Court” (this does not say anything about the actual outcome), followed by: “The German Constitutional Court found the German Law on the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) to be null and void. It was passed in the German Bundestag without the necessary 2/3 majority, i.e. it suffers from a formal defect which can, however, be remedied by new legislative acts if there is still sufficient political support. Interestingly, the Court also published a dissenting opinion by three of eight judges.”
This is similar to the lie or gross distortion disseminated by Winfried Tilmann et al. We’re supposed to think that the number of judges tugging the other way really matters and that it’s just a temporary and easily-overcome setback. It is neither of those things. We wrote some rebuttal to those sorts of lies (illogical nonsense) in previous parts. We prefer not to repeat ourselves as the previous rebuttals were sufficiently detailed. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA