EPO Presidents Campinos and Battistelli together with Barnier, three UPC boosters who are French and support software patents in Europe
TEAM UPC, Bristows LLP in particular, has not completely given up. Not just yet. This is becoming laughable and it will tarnish their reputation because it's very clear that they consciously and deliberately lie, leading to erosion of trust and longterm harm to credibility. But we'll bite anyway...
"...Team UPC is once again advertising jobs that very likely will never exist (and definitely don't exist at the moment)..."So yesterday Alan Johnson (Bristows, one of their most frequent liars) published something titled "UPC Preparatory Committee re-opens judicial recruitment process". After some UPC fluff in IP Kat and Kluwer Patent Blog Bristows now uses its own blog to skip the indirection. It's the first blog post in a very long time and they barely write anything this year (sometimes the silence lasts several months). We already responded to this several days ago; Team UPC is once again advertising jobs that very likely will never exist (and definitely don't exist at the moment), just like they did around 2015. Is this even legal? How long can this charade go on for? Certainly there are laws against false advertising. Anyway...
"Elsewhere in 'the news' this week we see little or nothing about the UPC, i.e. the usual in 2019 and in 2018."Moving on a bit, there's this fake new 'article' (advert disguised as an article) which spreads several serious lies (a few paragraphs down) about the UPC. We debunked these so many times before (many dozens of times), but we suppose that this is considered acceptable because nowadays journalism is dead and lawyers have been reduced to liars, the media has been reduced to their mouthpiece (especially in the domain of patents, where many supposed 'news' sites are themselves fully owned by law firms). This 'article' comes from World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), which no longer employs some of its better writers who covered EPO scandals. Have any workers at the EPO wondered why WIPR becomes more like WIPO over time? I heard some stories about WIPR and it's not pretty. They're very close to the EPO's management -- far more than anyone ought to be. And remember who subscribes to WIPR, i.e. who the clients are. If their writers cover issues like EPO crimes -- unlike PR -- then it's "not good for business" (or the "customers" -- the subscribers) and you can ultimately get sacked. People are rewarded or promoted for complicity.
Elsewhere in 'the news' this week we see little or nothing about the UPC, i.e. the usual in 2019 and in 2018. But earlier this week we saw ResearchAndMarkets bringing together liars from "the EPO, WIPO, UPC Preparatory Committee..." (ResearchAndMarkets is one of those marketing firms/power brokers that advertise themselves as 'analysts', 'consultants' etc.)
Is ResearchAndMarkets selling 'access'? It charges those who attend to be lied to (the business model is lobbying) and says this: "The event is very participative, providing plenty of time for open questions and round table discussions with the experts. It also offers a chance to learn about procedural issues and the practical aspects of the EPO, WIPO and USPTO, and how developments at the Unitary Patent Court will impact on you. [...] The speakers come directly from the EPO, WIPO, UPC Preparatory Committee and the USA..."
"Once the funding runs out for these liars they suddenly sound so much different."ResearchAndMarkets does several pro-EPO (as in, EPO management) events that promote software patents, overzealous litigation, the UPC and so on. It's worth exploring who's behind it. This isn't about information and education but pure lobbying. Managing IP and IAM do a lot of such lobbying; they occasionally set up pro-UPC events, sometimes with financial 'aid' from the EPO. And speaking of IAM, here is what it wrote yesterday: "The saga of the Unitary Patent System and Unified Patent Court’s implementation – and the effect of Brexit on this – has created uncertainty for practitioners across Europe."
They mean patent lawyers and patent trolls; not "practitioners" but parasites/predators. The term "practitioners" makes or helps people who produce nothing sound "productive". A lot of so-called "practices" are merely practicing taxation, predation and extortion.
IAM's business model is lying to the public. The patent trolls pay IAM for this 'service'. IAM used to block me in Twitter for merely pointing that out politely. On April 1st they posted this tweet:
https://twitter.com/IAM_magazine/status/1112610598091669504
Several months ago even IAM itself admitted that it had lied (or was 'wrong') about the UPC. Once the funding runs out for these liars they suddenly sound so much different. ⬆
"Unitary"?