-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Older: UPC Preparatory Committee Puts the Brakes on UPC Amid Brexit and Growing Uncertainty
Alexander Ramsay, Bristows, and the UPC gold rush
Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn’t making progress, but those who are keen to spin, mislead, distort facts and even falsify/fabricate statements would have us believe otherwise
THE UPC is stuck. It may in fact be dead like the TPP. But will Team UPC give up and admit defeat? Of course not. They have been lying about the UPC for a living for a number of years; they lied to officials, they lied to businesses, they lied to the media and so on.
“They have been lying about the UPC for a living for a number of years; they lied to officials, they lied to businesses, they lied to the media and so on.”Expecting Team UPC to abandon the UPC is like expecting a carpenter to abandon the hammer, the shoemaker to stop obsessing over shoes or asking a model to stop staring at the mirror. No matter what happens, Team UPC will always lie, if not just to others than at least to itself. Self deception can be a moralising exercise. Without the UPC, their whole raison d’être (or at least lobbying) was all in vain.
The EPO has said absolutely nothing about what happened in Germany. Who can blame the EPO? It’s so accustomed to outright lying, so lies by omission are a lesser offense.
“Is UPC ratification back on track in the UK? In a nutshell, no. Not even close.”Yesterday, in IP Kat comments, some jokes started to surface about DUP. Is the “UP” in “DUP” “Unitary Patent”? Well, basically, Bristows are at it again, having lied, cheated, etc. They gave the illusion of UPC progress first in their blog and then in IP Kat (which actually attracts some readers, unlike their lousy blog). They would have us believe that the UK officially resumes UPC ratification and all is back on track. But as always, look at what Bristows is hiding or distracting from. A lot of wishful thinkers (as we noted yesterday) have already relayed the propaganda from Bristows. Debunking is important because few sites out there have both the interest and the information required to refute the nonsense (of which there have been heaps for a number of years).
Our rule of thumb: whenever hearing something about UPC always fact-check and trace things back to the source (with extra scepticism when those who stand to personally gain from the UPC speak).
Is UPC ratification back on track in the UK? In a nutshell, no. Not even close.
“The longer it [the UPC] is delayed, the less its value.” –AnonymousThe comments are joking about the Conservative government, especially in light of its desperate deal with an antiscientific political party. “I suppose the DUP were in favour if the UPC then,” one comment joked. “Very progressive.”
Another asked: “Does anybody know what the DUP’s policy on IP is? Do they have a stance on the Unitary Patent?”
One answer was this: “I’ll go out on a limb and presume that they are not particularly concerned by IP or the UPC, as long as they don’t involve popery or dinosaurs…”
Suffice to say, DUP has nothing to do with it. In fact, UPC is not at all on the agenda as Tories scramble to merely survive and form a government. To believe otherwise is to either be misinformed or very, exceedingly gullible. Just unfold any British newspapers these days; it’s pretty chaotic. UPC is mentioned nowhere. At all! The EPO says not a word about it, except when Battistelli lies to impress a docile crowd.
“Better to say, the greater the delay, the less likely it is to happen. Ever!”Regarding the “DUP Bribe” (the latest scandal here, since Monday), one person wrote this: “Agreed, but as they aren’t particularly concerned, there is every possibility that if they believe the government thinks the UPC or any other IP issue is particularly important they will ask for another few £100m to agree to it.”
Someone in another thread, seemingly a UPC proponent, wrote somewhat panicky that “The longer it [the UPC] is delayed, the less its value.”
Better to say, the greater the delay, the less likely it is to happen. Ever!
Another new comment about it alludes to the deadlock in Germany, which adds perhaps another half a year in delays (and may result in Germany abandoning the UPC in its current form).
To quote:
> In my understanding, the “imbalance” is that an opponent in EP opposition proceedings after unsuccessfully going through the full EPO proceedings can try again in DE nullity proceedings. The opponent gets two shots and needs only one hit.As far as I know, it is not different for an opponent in DE opposition proceedings. I don’t see why it should matter that DE opposition proceedings have one more instance.There is a difference in that both DE opposition proceedings and DE nullity proceedings are handled by the BPatG (and reviewed by the BGH). But is the BPatG/BGH in nullity proceedings in any way bound by the final decision in the DE opposition proceedings between the same parties on the same patent?Only if the BPatG/BGH is legally bound (to the extent that the facts are the same etc.) would I agree that the EP/DE imbalance is not present in the DE/DE system. But then, if the imbalance in the EP/DE system really is a problem, the solution is simple: make sure that the BPatG/BGH is legally bound in the same way by a final decision in EPO opposition proceedings.(It seems the German courts don’t require much in the way of standing in nullity proceedings and do not mind strawmen. So imbalance appears to be ingrained in the German national patent system. Likely there is nothing unconstitutional about it.)
One could think that any reasonable person would accept that Europe’s largest economy is now the centre of attention (or deadlock), not somewhere like Estonia (Bristows pays for nonsensical ‘articles’ about Estonia, to give an illusion of progress).
“We assume IP Kat doesn’t want accuracy anymore, just marketing.”Yesterday, citing UPC propagandists (the UPC Preparatory Committee, which is essentially a misnomer as it's a bunch of moles), IP Kat again allowed propagandists from Bristows replicate and expand propaganda from their misleading blog. In our last article about the UPC we debunked what they had published in their blog. But on they go at IP Kat, never mind if commenters will identify all the holes very quickly (they can always just delete ‘inconvenient’ comments, as they habitually do these days).
The first comment, which was miraculously approved, was responding to the propagandists from Bristows by gently and politely debunking them as follows: “What difference will the Conference recess (Parliament breaks up again for party conferences between 14 September and 9 October) make to this estimate? It leaves a very short time to sort out the committees (a process which is only barely starting now and won’t be complete until at least September) and have them consider the legislation. Isn’t it more likely this will happen in October – and we are not certain how long it will take. And won’t the Scottish order have to be in place too? When is that realistically expected to happen? January sunrise seems a little optimistic to me. I suspect a month or two later but we’re all guessing…”
“Amid German constitutional challenge on UPC – what happened to Ireland’s constit[utional] referendum on the esoteric subject of patents and the UPC?” –Luke McDonaghIt’s worse than guessing. It’s lobbying. We assume IP Kat doesn’t want accuracy anymore, just marketing. It’s reputational downfall. Bristows can’t help leaving a mess of fake news and propaganda in at least 3 blogs and paid-for ‘articles’ (they pay some sites to repost their fake news). Frankly, someone needs to clean up this mess. That someone certainly isn’t Alex Robinson, who wrote to me a couple of days ago to defend Bristows, just before he too started relaying that fake optimism. Citing Bristows, Alex Robinson said that “a draft Order was laid before the Westminster Parliament. This is subject to the so-called “affirmative resolution” procedure, requiring scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. Despite the “Brexit” vote, no serious opposition is expected to the passage of the legislation.”
He wrote about that again, under the banner “preparatory work continues” and he also tweeted a lot about it [1, 2, 3, 4], totally ignoring the part about Germany (not alternative facts but inconvenient facts).
“UPC (Unified Patent Court) comes to a screeching halt due to Germany…” –Rolf ClaessenHow could he miss it, omitting the parts that don’t suit Team UPC? Well, linking to the same text from Ramsay (himself a core part of Team UPC, sometimes appearing in conjunction with the EPO’s dedicated UPC liar, Margot Fröhlinger), some people took note of his comments on Germany.
Dr. Luke McDonagh asked: “Amid German constitutional challenge on #UPC – what happened to Ireland’s constit referendum on the esoteric subject of #patents & the #UPC?”
Even a UPC proponent from Germany moaned as follows: “#GRUR2017 – Germany’s most important IP conference. 3 days. More than 1000 attendees. Number of session on #UPC: 0 #spilledmilk”
Maybe because they know that it’s anything but certain. It’s a dead dream perhaps…
“UPC/UP project runs into more trouble as suit lodged in the German Constitutional Court…” –Anne HargreavesRolf Claessen wrote that the “UPC (Unified Patent Court) comes to a screeching halt due to Germany http://bit.ly/2tnhAUS” (linking to the same text as Bristows but interpreting it differently).
Another professional, Anne Hargreaves, said that the “UPC/UP project runs into more trouble as suit lodged in the German Constitutional Court https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/message-chair” (again, linking to the same text as Bristows but interpreting it differently).
Bristows staff should apply for a job at Donald Trump’s office. Apparently they need people to help distort reality. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Mon Jun 17 03:34:00 2024