View larger version

Summary: A collection of the latest news and views on the UPC, which is being lied about by those who stand to benefit from it and is probably going nowhere because Brexit means that the UK stays out, in which case it must be reset and pertinent ratifications done all over again

THE EPO's management is eager if not desperate to bring legal chaos to Europe (in the form of UPC), even if the public and businesses object to it.

So why did the UPC have some momentum? Well, Team UPC was pushing for it in private events where it habitually lied (for instance claiming that UPC was "for SMEs" -- the very opposite of what's true). Christopher Weber, for example, part of the litigation 'industry', ignored what didn't suit his position and wrote: "Very little opposition to the UPC in the U.K.?"

“Despite political will & legal creativity, Brexit is end of UK in UPC.”
      --KlunkerIP, Munich law firmNo, not really. There is a lot of opposition among people who know what is going on. There is in fact this new petition titled "Reject the ratification of the Unitary Patent treaty by the UK and Scotland". Someone from FFII started it and the summary states: "The Unitary Patent contain articles which refers to the supremacy of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), while politicians have promised to respect the democratic Brexit vote of UK citizens to leave the EU; The UPC court will provide case law in favor of software patents."

KlunkerIP, a "Munich IP law firm reflecting on professional issues" (based on its Twitter profile), has meanwhile said: "Despite political will & legal creativity, Brexit is end of UK in UPC. #CJEU held only #EU states can make #UPC. #UK like #CH or #NO (fm)"

The supposed "political will" is due to mischief and lobbying from Team UPC, CIPA, etc. Someone from the patent microcosm has just selectively quoted in a tweet something from a new article: "Great quote in The Times UK IP supplement Raconteur “There may be a compromise and we’ll be allowed into the UPC th..."

“I thought it was a quite good piece as it states quite clearly that the UPC is incompatible with the CJEU not having jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit.”
      --AnonymousWe've decided to chase the source and see what's behind it, knowing that Team UPC has turned lying into somewhat of an art form. We have produced a screenshot of this article (requires Flash and bloat to view otherwise) and it looks like News Corporation doing another puff piece for a stakeholder. "Not sure if you have seen this one," one reader told us, but "look at page 3..."

Not News Corporation's page 3 of The Sun...

Having just read it quickly, it looks familiar. It repeats a lot of myths. I asked the reader if there was "anything in particular" in that article that's worth repeating, for it's "full of lies" and it was published in association with CIPA, i.e. it's lobbying. "I thought it was a quite good piece," the reader told me, "as it states quite clearly that the UPC is incompatible with the CJEU not having jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit."

"Team UPC does not want the public to understand what's going on, for fear it might -- gasp! -- get involved."Why didn't Team UPC cite these passages then? Not convenient enough? Where is the coverage from IP Kat? Something about these serious issues? Well, Bristows' virtual takeover of IP Kat seemed further cemented yesterday. Bristows, based on this nonsensical post, now speaks for "the entire IPKat team!" (direct quote)

In this post, Bristows' lobbyist also sucks up to Microsoft's patent extortionist once again. Serial litigators who shake down companies for 'protection' money...

So anyway, why is it so hard to obtain accurate information about the UPC? Well, that's a design flaw. Team UPC does not want the public to understand what's going on, for fear it might -- gasp! -- get involved.

"It's 'laundering' of law or abject hijack of law (stealing democracy) by those who want more litigation because they would profit from it at everyone's expense."Ever heard how lobbyists are writing laws on behalf of corporations? Watch what Team UPC is trying to do right now, based on this tweet and corresponding blog post from Louise Amar (part of Team UPC).

"The Preparatory Committee published the new draft rules of procedure," it says, not quite noting who's in this committee (it's an embarrassment if not institutional corruption). It's an "undemocratic procedure," Benjamin Henrion (FFII) told them. They have detailed a list of changes to procedures, written by so-called 'experts' who are actually the wolves pretending to guard sheep. That in its own right should disqualify the UPC. It's 'laundering' of law or abject hijack of law (stealing democracy) by those who want more litigation because they would profit from it at everyone's expense. Letting these people write these laws is like allowing oil companies to compose environmental regulations which govern them. ⬆