THE UPC Big Lie refuses to die. There is so much money at stake and those who hope to grab that money will just lie ad infinitum. Yesterday, Alan Johnson from Bristows (chronic liars [1, 2, 3]) wrote this blog post in the firm's growingly-neglected site (as the UPC is clearly in a limbo).
"They have a TERRIBLE, truly appalling track record on facts."Bristows has made false predictions so many times in the past that anyone with a braincell should learn to simply ignore them by now. But no; those who want to believe (like alien enthusiasts) just keep boosting all that nonsense. Whatever seems more optimistic is deemed better, but basing anything one publishes based on the liars from Bristows is not safe. They have a TERRIBLE, truly appalling track record on facts.
Here we have Alexander Esslinger (a.k.a. "Patently German") propping up the latest nonsense from Bristows et al by saying "Provisional phase of #UPC to start in May 2017; fully operational in December 2017" (he is actually citing Withers & Rogers, whose employee Dave Croston has just published fake news about the UPC).
"Many people have already explained why UPC is definitely inseparable from the EU.""Unified Patent Court to be operational by December 2017 says the Preparatory Committee," says this firm liking to this blurb from Team UPC. The Preparatory Committee is basically like a group of UPC boosters; they're not independent actors. "Funfair fortunetellers predicting the future," one person called it. If credibility depends on past predictions, Bristows and Team UPC should be regarded as chronic liars and repeating lies from Team UPC is hardly good journalism. They said 2015 about UPC ratifications, then 2016, now they say 2017. When will people learn to distrust people who continuously lie in an attempt to pressure/compel politicians to make an error, under the false impression of UPC inevitability?
Watch WIPR bragging about their "top story", which is basically not fact-checked. The title is also misleading, as "can" (in the body) becomes "due to become" (in the headline). Never mind that Lucy Neville-Rolfe (whom they quote/cite) left or has been sacked after just months at her job.
"If the UPC became a reality, British businesses would be subjected to court rulings from places like Brussels."According to this new tweet, Lucy's successor "Jo Johnson who said ' #UPC isn't an EU institution' http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2015/intellectural-property-ev4-16-17/ … at 11:08"
Well, Jo Johnson (who is very young for a politician) is wrong. Maybe he is still clueless because he's new at the job and has no prior experience in this area. Many people have already explained why UPC is definitely inseparable from the EU. See for example this older series:
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) preparatory committee has announced that the UPC can become operational in December this year.
Today, January 16, the committee announced that it is now “working under the assumption” that the provisional application phase will start at the end of spring 2017, “presumably in May”.
The committee said that the court can become operational in December 2017.
It confirmed that judicial interviews can begin and “appointments eventually confirmed”.
In October last year, WIPR reported that the UPC had postponed the recruitment of UPC judges in light of the Brexit vote.
“The current timetable is being revisited in light of the result of the referendum in the UK, which will to some extent delay the entry into operation of the UPC,” it said at the time.
In November last year, former UK Minister of State for Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, made the announcement that the UK will implement the unitary patent and UPC.