"The day that the software sector forms a clear front against software patents, as pharma does for a unitary patent system… will be the day our cause comes close to winning." —Pieter Hintjens (he died last year)
WE HAVE often shown that EPO benefits US interests more than European interests because large multinational corporations take precedence/priority over local European companies. Moreover, the EPO often contracts US-based companies, e.g. for PR/reputation laundering. What is even the point calling it EPO? The only "European" thing about it is the staff. We said that years ago.
"What is even the point calling it EPO? The only "European" thing about it is the staff."Yesterday, the EPO published (warning: epo.org link) this news [sic] that reinforces the view regarding detachment from science and technology. The EPO listens not to industry or actual engineers; it does not even listen to European ones. It often feels like the EPO is working for US lobbies (IPO and AIPLA, which are aggressively in favour software patents [1, 2]) and in the EPO's own words:
The EPO and the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO - a US association of patent attorneys mainly in industry) have a long standing relationship. IPO is, together with the AIPLA, the American counterpart for Trilateral and IP5 industry meetings.
"It's a disservice not only to Europe but to innovation worldwide."And speaking of toxic front groups, watch what CIPA has just posted. CIPA is a dangerous cult which lobbies governments for the UPC and thereby attacks British and European interests. Its UPC advocacy is only one among many nefarious activities and now it quotes this: "“We have been trying to move to something like a Unified Patent Court for 45 years and now is the time to get it done,” Kevin Mooney, Chair of the Drafting Cttee for the Rules of the UPC, tells #CIPALS2017" (yes, that's a lobbying event of CIPA).
Team UPC's Bristows has also just posted something about the European Judges Forum, which turned into UPC lobbying in the form/embodiment of Alexander Ramsay. To quote IP Kat (where CIPA is now among those in charge):
This, the 12th year of the conference, saw 35 judges of 15 nations (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom) pull together. They were joined by 31 European lawyers and seven officers of the EPO. This year, the forum debated SEP and FRAND, discretion on injunctive relief under the UPC, case law on damages and an update on the UPC from Alexander Ramsay. The focus of the forum was a mock trial decided by judges from the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy and Germany.
as to the usefulness of the UPC, here is what I posted, earlier today, to the Kluwer blog:
When it comes to the UPC, the level of pleading from vested interests, parties with “an Agenda” is enough to make one puke. I started in the patent profession before the EPO, in the days prior to the Protocol on Art 69 EPC, when Germany decided scope of protection one way, and England in a very different way. Since then, there has been ever greater harmonisation throughout EPC-land, and a huge gain in legal certainty. Not because of any pan-European court but because of enlightened performance at the EPO (until recently), and comradely behaviour from the patent judges in the leading EU jurisdictions. Judges are only human. They want their clear and logical thinking to be adopted by their brother and sister judges in the other jurisdictions. Bear in mind that these other jurisdictions have very different procedural law. But they come together regularly, to debate and minimise their differences, which are steadily diminishing (see the latest Decision by the UK Supreme Court, to aligh itself with mainland Europe). This rivalry between different procedures and different legal interpretations is what improves the clarity of the law of infringement in the whole of Europe. If you doubt me, observe how rivalry between the various Technical Boards in EPO DG3 has produced a body of caselaw, in the White Book of Established Caselaw, that is unassailable in its logic and so has swept the world. For the most recent example, see the current IPKat interview with the Head of the Patent Office in Australia. The proponents of the UPC should be ashamed of themselves, sacrificing all this legal certainty and harmonisation at the behest of the multi-national corporate interests, the bulk users of the EPO patent grant service, to rid themselves of the attentions of troublesome SME patent owners. And we were doing quite well enough recently, with engineering disputes litigated in Germany and pharma litigation concentrated in London, and no need to litigate everywhere in order to resolve the dispute. As Robin Jacob has said “We can learn from the Americans. Watch what they do, and don’t then make the same mistakes”. Introducing this UPC is to make the same mistake as the Americans. And note, for the same reason. Germany, the home of the SME engineering manufacturer is, with its Constitutional doubts, is belatedly seeing the light. Better late than never.
"It's not even alarmist, that's just the reality of it, however bluntly we sometimes put it because most of the media is complicit (cooperative with the coup for short-term gain)."The whole thing, as described above, represents serious corruption at the very heart of Europe. It's systemic/organised corruption and the sooner we recognise it, the better we can tackle it. We didn't spend the past decade antagnosing the UPC (it wasn't always known as "UPC") for no reason at all. It's not even alarmist, that's just the reality of it, however bluntly we sometimes put it because most of the media is complicit (cooperative with the coup for short-term gain). ⬆