THE previous part and the one before it dealt with notorious law firms and what they said about the ultimate collapse of the UPC. Those firms had been some of the worst ('core' Team UPC), so it was hardly surprising that they still lied about the decision. Like European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos they just latched onto lies. They sought to popularise these lies, making them seem not only acceptable lies but also honourable ones. This is why this series of ours is needed.
"The terms used there are gross understatements because for quite some time it seemed rather apparent that the UPC was going nowhere."Among press reports that we saw around the time (not composed directly by law firms) was this article by thelawyer.com (yes, obviously in the pockets of law firms). "Patent lawyers left “scratching heads” as UK u-turns to quit UPC" was the headline. Well, if the UK's position had them “scratching heads,” then surely the decision in Germany (a few weeks later) had them scratching their bums. The terms used there are gross understatements because for quite some time it seemed rather apparent that the UPC was going nowhere. It was stuck and deadlocked.
Leaders League, a reprinter of EPO press releases and lies (we took note of them several times lately), said that the Germans voted "unanimously in favor" although it was a coup, planned or scheduled to take place at 1AM. The patent zealots never liked to properly explain what happened that night. Nobody mentioned that. Such political corruption at the heart of the German capital would leave lawyers scratching all sorts of things...
"The patent zealots never liked to properly explain what happened that night. Nobody mentioned that. Such political corruption at the heart of the German capital would leave lawyers scratching all sorts of things..."This is what Leaders League wrote: "On March 20th, the German Federal Constitutional Court said the Act of the Approval of the UPC Agreement was void. Although it was passed by the Second Chamber of the Bundestag, it required a two-thirds majority in the main chamber and albeit those present voted unanimously in favor, there were only 35 members present."
As a reminder of what actually happened (maybe Leaders League really isn't aware and is genuinely uninformed), it was really this bad. To downplay the severity of this incident and to conveniently pretend that the FCC ruled the way it did (not even dealing with substance of the complaint just yet) unfairly is as bad as pretending that these 'debates' in British politics are fair and balanced. This is just classic political corruption. To suggest otherwise is to defend this corruption or be an apologist for it. We'll come back to it in the final and closing part. First, however, we shall survey some responses from law firms. ⬆