News: 1595314446

"Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the Government’s aims of becoming subservient to Trump, creaming money off dodgy deals with American corporations an independent self-governing nation,” she said.

It would perhaps be more constructive to look at the actual arguments for and against a European UPC, in the light of the German rejection and the current EPO status, rather than spouting yet another tiresome, irrelevant, anti-Brexit rant.

Why? I'm following the brexitter tradition of making a knee-jerk reaction to something I know nothing about, to troll you in the process.

But that aside, I was clearly talking about the governmrnts motivations, and not the UPC itself... Do you really think BoJo has read it?

Still, you won, get over it.

"The UK has formally ditched the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a project to create a single pan-European patent system that would fix the confusing mess of contradictory laws currently in place."

Brexit just keeps on giving. So how is it going to be better again? Blue (well - dark blue/black passports and... )

I voted to remain, but the Euro Patent office was a complete shambles, an shining example of designed by comitee, a very corrupt one at that.

If there was ever a poster child for Brexit, the EPO was it.

I do love Brits criticising the bureaucracy of EU institutions, where as their own institutions are a Monty Pythonesque example of such bureaucracy, Living in the UK, at some point during the COVID lockdown, I couldn't allow my girlfriend into the house for a bit of bedroom action, however, by law I could have the same kind of adult fun with up to five people in my garden, as long as it was done discretely.

See below the benefits of a Europe's United Patent Court. Of course the UK doesn't want to have anything to do with such benefits....until Boris Johnson gets replaced and someone more sensible realises it is actually hurting the UK competitively.

What are the possible benefits of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court?

For applicants – Reduced validation fees and translation fees. A potential reduction in renewal fees.

For claimant patentees – Reduced cost of enforcement across many European countries.

For claimant patentees – Ability to commence infringement proceedings in a single division that is convenient and suitable for the case to obtain a single pan-European injunction (preliminary or final) across several countries. There are numerous practical, legal, language and tactical considerations which will drive this decision, including the likely treatment of related claims for revocation. The commercial consequences of a pan-European injunction will make UPs very powerful intellectual property rights to have.

For defendant parties – Possible reduction of cost of defending the same (allegedly infringing) product in a number of EU Member States simultaneously.

For claimants/defendants – Ability to seek revocation of a patent in a number of EU Member States simultaneously.

For SMEs – Possible reduced fees, certainly compared to multi-jurisdictional litigation in several EU countries at once, making patent enforcement a feasible option for SMEs who previously could not afford it. Access to injunctions in countries with court systems seen to date as not being sufficiently predictable and/or fiscally out of reach for SMEs.

Reduced validation fees and translation fees are major problems. We should be increasing patent quality by slashing patent quantity. A dozen per year is more than enough. Increasing the price to £10million per (re-)application would be a small step in the right direction.

Reduced enforcement/trolling costs are a much worse problem. Step one should be £100million in escrow to cover the defendant's legal costs.

IIRC Apple sued Samsung in the EU and was appoint a court in the UK. Apple did not like how the hearing was going so tried again in Germany. Samsung pointed this out, the German proceedings were ended and Apple got a harsh scolding. We already had a way to make EU wide rulings based on a single trial in a country selected to be not overly awkward to the defendant or the troll.

The SME argument is a complete straw man. Patent assertion/defence starts at about £10million. SME's do far better by developing version N+1 so any copies of version N are completely uncompetitive. The real value of patents to SME's to accelerate the rush to bankruptcy and have the patents picked out of the corpse by trolling vulture capitalists for a pittance.

I was going to write a passive-aggressive response, but I shouldn't.

The whole point of the patent is to allow people and businesses to put their ideas into public and give them some protection in doing so.

If the fee was too high for normal people (without the big bucks) to patent ideas it could prevent them from submitting their wonderful ideas.

Arguably, the fee should be reduced (or waived) for people who cannot afford it, or even for everyone. You want people to put their ideas into the public, even if they don't have the expenditure to see it through to production. Big businesses can then buy the patent from the owner, who are able to see it through to production.

Geniuses are just born into rich families, it's just that they have more opportunities to share their ideas.

You are entirely correct. Mr Kroes on the other hand, isn't.

Arguably, the fee should be reduced (or waived) for people who cannot afford it, or even for everyone. You want people to put their ideas into the public, even if they don't have the expenditure to see it through to production. Big businesses can then buy the patent from the owner, who are able to see it through to production.

The problem there becomes that I can start patenting a great many things and doing little to bring them into reality, and then sit back and wait for the future to enrich my descendants. Imagine if Gene Roddenberry had patented much of the Start Trek ideas - no tablet computing without paying the Start Trek tax, no real time ML language translations, etc etc

Where patents are available too freely they act as nought more than a tax on the future rather than protection for bringing it forth. By way of evidence I give you the patent trolls / farmers whose sole business is buying up defunct companies to mine their IP.

"The problem there becomes that I can start patenting a great many things and doing little to bring them into reality, and then sit back and wait for the future to enrich my descendants. Imagine if Gene Roddenberry had patented much of the Start Trek ideas - no tablet computing without paying the Start Trek tax, no real time ML language translations, etc etc"

Which is why, as far as I know, sensible patent regimes give a patent a limited life, during which time you are expected to develop, manufacture, bring to market or just sell the idea.

Once the patent expires, anyone can follow your guide to make their own copy.

It isn't Disney "copyright", but for fast changing technology, it might as well be sometimes.

The "limited life" is 20 years. Imagine bringing a new product to market while being limited to 20 year old technology. (The car industry does exactly that with patents they do not own or cross-license. I am not sure how this rewards inventors or increases the rate of technical progress)

There is no expectation, requirement, preference or hint that development is the next step after (or before) getting a patent - much less manufacturing or bringing to market. There is no requirement that the patented invention even works. There was supposed to be some concept that a person skilled in the art could read a patent and then create the invention. That has not been reality for a long time. (There was supposed to be some lip-service to the idea that someone skilled in the art could not promptly re-create your invention without reading the patent but getting a patent invalidated for being obvious is impractical.) You can patent 'the idea' without going into detail about how such an invention could be made. Vagueness is in fact a bonus because it makes it difficult to prove someone else's product does not infringe.

Selling the idea only works if you have money. Lots of money. If you actually have a brilliant idea and it is still brilliant years later when you have your patent try showing it to a manufacturer. They will show you the door. Next year you will see your invention on sale. Sue for patent infringement. Sell you house to cover the initial legal fees. Live in a cardboard box for months of delays. Find you do not have the money to continue. Sell the lawsuit for a percentage of the payout. The buyer then does a cross-licensing deal so no money changes hands and you get nothing.

The effective way to earn money from patents if to patent gibberish. The patent will be rejected so you modify the gibberish a little and re-submit it to avoid the fee for filing a new patent. This method takes about as long as patenting a good idea but you do not need to bother with all that expensive time consuming R&D. Next threaten to sue world+dog. Do not for any reason actually initiate court proceedings. At first offer cheap settlements. You will get some. Use the funds for more threats. Keep the business growing until you are a multimillionaire then you can actually sue someone with money. Pick the right victim and they will settle for a large lump of cash on the condition that you sue their competitor.

The good news for this business model is that it is like Mickey Mouse copyrights. Every five years you update your patents so they are good for another 20 years.

The whole point of the patent system used to be to increase the rate of technical progress by rewarding inventors with a time limited monopoly in return for publicly documenting how their invention work. The patent system was subverted by regulatory capture decades ago. At best it is now a mechanism for lawyers to eat 30% of the world's R&D budget - at a [1]reduced tax rate .

The only reason I cannot link to the latest [2]stupid patent of the month is that no-one has the resources required to read them all and pick a winner. IBM earn the nickname "the Nazgul" because they could blacken the sky with lawyers. They use to read through all the new patents to find good ideas. They stopped decades ago because even they did not have the resources to read patents that fast (and the rate has increased since then), they were not learning anything useful and it opened them up to triple damages for wilful infringement. (Stupid Patent of the Month used to warn people against reading the patents because of the risk of those triple damages.)

Please please lets see an example of a recent patent that has actually fulfils the original goals of the patent system.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-the-patent-box

[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month

The SME argument is a complete straw man. Patent assertion/defence starts at about £10million. SME's do far better by developing version N+1 so any copies of version N are completely uncompetitive. The real value of patents to SME's to accelerate the rush to bankruptcy and have the patents picked out of the corpse by trolling vulture capitalists for a pittance.

This is probably the best description of the realities of patent law I've read this year. Patents are a bit like employment rights, in that if you can't or won't go to court to enforce them then they don't really exist.

Changing employment law to make tribunals anonymous for the individual but public for the corporate would allow people to enforce their rights without trashing their careers. Changing patent law to make the parties over a certain fiscal size cover the costs of parties under a certain fiscal size should prevent some of the abuses there too.

Never mind that the EPO is not an EU body. Like the ECHR, it has an E in front, so must be nasty!

"Never mind that the EPO is not an EU body. Like the ECHR, it has an E in front, so must be nasty!"

No, the way it behaves means it is nasty. Or did you miss the (allegedly. Haha) 'questionable' behaviour of Battistelli and his cronies?

If there was ever a poster child for Brexit, the EPO was it

As far as I can gather, the UPC, which should not be confused with the EPO, is not an EU institution and not all EU countries are members, though there is provision for EU recognition where member states have signed up.

Had it been a purely EU body, it would likely have been rather less complex, but there were originally ambitions to extend participation beyond the EU.

The alternative to the UK "participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU" is that businesses have to deal with that court anyway (assuming it comes into existence) as well continuing to deal with courts in the UK. But we're probably just burning a bridge to a place that's already on fire.

EPO is a cesspool. The missus got out when after our child was born, and some good friends are still stuck there. They have nothing good to say, especially now that they are all working from home, and miss the best part, the EPO restaurant is really quite nice according to the missus. And I hear the bar was quite nice, and used to be open from lunch on... but that was abused and the hours were limited.

If there was ever a poster child for Brexit, the EPO was it.

Yes, exactly. It is the poster child for Brexit. The EPO is not an EU institution and Brexit is just an unthinking rejection of everything that could be described as "Yrup".

Brexit just keeps on giving. So how is it going to be better again?

And yet here we are, all these years down the line and still no remainer has ever been able to give voice to why they wanted to remain, to explain what tangible benefit they think they have that they think they're losing and how they think that might impact them. Not one remainer, no one reason, in more than 4 years.

Being able to sign our own trade deal with the rest of the world is a major advantage over the rEU which took 7+ years to do a trade deal with Canada. There's a whole world out there beyond little old Europe.

Being able to control our own laws and interpretation of them rather than having some court in Europe dictate to us what we will and won't do, while the rest of Europe interprets the law as they please and are never sanctioned for it, that will be a major benefit of leaving.

Advantages of staying.... erm..... maybe something about booking a holiday once or twice a year.... but that's about all most people will have, and when they realise how many holidays they have outside of the rEU they'll quickly see that was no benefit at all.

Project fear never had any answers, and unfortunately for them, England is unafraid.

And still no remainer has ever been able to give voice to why they wanted to remain

The tedious brexiteer lie. But when has anyone pro-brexit not claimed lies as truth and denied truth as lie?

And yet you still don't give an answer. Not one. One might be given to consideration that it is because you don't have one? Lots of downvotes, but never an answer.

It's always the same old remainer nonsense. Afraid of change. That is your whole argument in 3 words. The biggest lie of all was always that the rEU had kept peace in Europe since WW2 - only for Russia to annex half of the only country to be a member of the rEU and not be a member of NATO. Quite honestly how you can keep a straight face while accusing others of lies is beyond me - you should be ashamed.

Either way, we're out now and we're never going back. Onward and upwards.

The biggest lie of all was always that the rEU had kept peace in Europe since WW2 - only for Russia to annex half of the only country to be a member of the rEU and not be a member of NATO.

Since when was the Ukraine a member of the EU? Are you even on this planet?

Given that the two apparent leaders of the EU, despite the nationality of the sitting President, are Germany and France, a better question might be what exactly did WW2 achieve?

One blue flag with a circle of gold stars. One citizenship for everybody without exception, regardless of pre-EU national boundaries. One EU President.

One blue flag with a circle of gold stars. One citizenship for everybody without exception, regardless of pre-EU national boundaries. One EU President.

One regime, one set of rules, all for the greater glory of the union. Sounds almost like China.

No one replied to you because you're trolling badly. Not even the most insane brexitters claim there are no benefits to staying in the EU.

But here goes.... trade (to be fair, at least most brexitters voted on the assumption we'd have a trade deal... another lie)

Jobs, inward investment, being the European base for English speaking multinationals. Great trade deals with other countries (due to the might of the EU being the biggest trading block)

Independence ... Yeah. We were a sovereign state with a huge influence in a powerful block. Now we're going to be Americas bitch. Of course, that means lower food and working conditions.

Actually.. That's hardly scratching the surface. You're wasting my time. Google it.

Still, at least there's that £350 million a week for the NHS to look forward to.

Not even the most insane brexitters claim there are no benefits to staying in the EU.

I never said they didn't exist, I just said Remainers don't know what they are.... looking at your post I was right.

Jobs, inward investment, being the European base for English speaking multinationals.

This is a key benefit of leaving - its why multinationals are increasingly moving their work here out of Europe since the Brexit vote. You've not understood global commerce properly and as a result hold a view completely contrary to the reality of what is happening - see closing European car factories to bring the work here, McDonalds new shinny HQ etc etc for details.

Great trade deals with other countries (due to the might of the EU being the biggest trading block)

Sorry, no, you've not understood this correctly either. It took 7 years to do a very limited trade deal with Canada. It took 20+ years to not do a trade deal with the African Union. Trade deals shouldn't take as long as they do and that is purely because the rEU does them wrong - little Belgian provinces that nobody has ever heard of suddenly refuse to ratify without bribes, for example. We need to be out of the rEU so we can do global trade deals much much faster than they do and with greater clarity.

Independence ... Yeah. We were a sovereign state with a huge influence in a powerful block.

Perhaps the best example of cognitive dissonance I've seen all week. We're so powerful that when we sent the PM to negotiate an options list of utterly trivial changes, they not only insisted that each member state's negotiator made space for a "german chair" in the room, but they sent him packing like some naughty school boy. That's how "huge" our influence was in the economically increasingly irrelevant EU.

Now we're going to be Americas bitch. Of course, that means lower food and working conditions.

More remainer lies. Not one single change has been proposed by anyone to employment law, the vast bulk of which the EU adopted from us in the first place when we became a member.

So far your reasoning amounts to misunderstanding a whole array of issues around which you have no competence, and lies about the path independence will take. In short, you have nothing. As a Leaver I could give you a more realistic list to want to stay a member that would be based on fact rather than emotion, but I find it too entertaining to watch remainers flail around like chicken little. The sky isn't falling, we're going to be just fine, better than fine.

What I got from your post was that you think America is an evil, horrible place and one you could easily do without, you don't need anything that comes out of America. You're wasting my time.

"Google it."

Oh no, you can't can you - Google's American and you don't need anything from America, do you?

All these years down the line and still no remainer has ever been able to give voice to why they wanted to remain, to explain what tangible benefit they think they have that they think they're losing and how they think that might impact them. Not one remainer, no one reason, in more than 4 years.

Your question is like "Not one non-hole driller has been able to explain what tangible benefit they think they have by not drilling a hole in the bottom of this boat". The answer is, of course, not fucking everything up.

But if you want a random list, a value-for-money bureaucracy that is smaller than many UK city councils managing to streamline many things common to the bloc (e.g. customs for which the UK will now need 50,000 employees extra, companies will now need to spend a lot of money on imports and exports), the single market and customs union which removes barriers to the UK's biggest market, the ability to take part in trade negotiations representing an area of approx 460 million people meaning you generally get your own way and get to set standards, creating an all-island economy between Ireland/NI based with the single market and customs union to help bring peace to the island, high food and environmental standards and strong consumer laws, laws to protect everyone from discrimination in the workplace which went back to 1957, freedom of movement to live, study, work, and retire in all EU countries.

The fact that you only barely managed to go on holiday to the EU doesn't mean that other people don't think the EU was useful.

Project fear never had any answers, and unfortunately for them, England is unafraid.

Popularist faux-patriotic bullshit. Ingerland is currently having a collective temper tantrum. A pandemic isn't good enough, there has to be Brexit and, if that's not good enough, Brexit without a trade deal, too. It's friggin national suicide cult.

"Not one non-hole driller has been able to explain what tangible benefit they think they have by not drilling a hole in the bottom of this boat". The answer is, of course, not fucking everything up.

Not terribly relevant but almost all boats have at least one hole in the bottom.

a value-for-money bureaucracy that is smaller than many UK city councils

Value for money? Really? How many presidents does it have now and what does each one do? No Googling. You don't know, nobody does, because they do so little of any actual value.

companies will now need to spend a lot of money on imports and exports)

Sort of like trading with the rest of the world, whose global share of GSP is growing where the rEU is shrinking fast? We can offset their costs by using a fraction of the net tariffs (absent a trade deal) to compensate their costs.

the ability to take part in trade negotiations representing an area of approx 460 million people meaning you generally get your own way and get to set standards

No, no you don't. You get to bully weaker trading blocks like the African Union, but you don't get to set sh*t with important parts of the world like USA or China. And for that you waste 7 years negotiating a very small trade deal with Canada, who are probably the most reasonable nation on earth. 7 years!

creating an all-island economy between Ireland/NI based with the single market and customs union to help bring peace to the island

No it didn't. We joined in 1973 and the Irish were still bombing the piss out of each other and the mainland for several decades to come. Best case you could claim the rEU helped the IRA lie to themselves about already having a unified Ireland inside the rEU, but that was never true and was never going to be the case. Its just more deception.

high food and environmental standards and strong consumer laws

So your view is that these only exist in the rEU? Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

laws to protect everyone from discrimination in the workplace which went back to 1957

Sure, go try being not white in Poland and then come back singing the praises of this.... I've had 3 different mates marry Polish girls and relocate - the white guys had no problems and were accepted into their community and workplaces. The black guy not so much - spat at in the street, regarded with suspicion, subject to hate. He had a breakdown after 18 months and came home.

freedom of movement to live, study, work, and retire in all EU countries.

Ah, that theoretical freedom again. And yet, nobody did any of this. If we net them all up you're talking about around 500,000 people, of which more than half are retirees in Spain. British people live, work, and retire the world over - the rEU conveys no particular benefit in this regard to most people because they'll never use it. I've lived and worked in two foreign countries and found it no easier in the rEU. This is a classic example of a paper benefit - something you think you might value because you think you might use it, but you never do - sort of like the spare pack of bogrolls in the airing cupboard, no?

The fact that you only barely managed to go on holiday to the EU doesn't mean that other people don't think the EU was useful.

Yeah, my wife is Swedish and unlike you I have have lived and worked there. I've lived and worked outside the rEU too. The much vaunted freedom of movement was always far more important to Europeans because they had English as a shared second language, than it ever has been for us Brits.

London is France's 6th biggest city.... Paris, in terms of British population, would barely pass for an English village. Spain, where half of all British expats in the rEU reside, makes up a place about the size of Swansea by population. And you'll still be allowed to retire to Spain after the transition period expires. You don't really think that Greece offering a competitive 7% tax rate on all income if you retire there is going to refuse you right of entry? Freedom of movement is the biggest paper tiger you could have raised. SMH.

Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just repeating what you read in the guardian? There's nothing at all to fear from no deal. We have no deal with America or China, and yet I type this on a Chinese keyboard, wearing American jeans and trainers, and sipping a Coke.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. I know you're scared, but frankly this display of cowardice in front of the enemy is most unbecoming of an Englishman.

"Brexit just keeps on giving. So how is it going to be better again? Blue (well - dark blue/black passports and... )"

I fail to see what Brexit has to do with accusations that the EPO was delaying small business or individuals' Patent applications while leaking details of those applications to their cronies in big business, thus allowing the bigger company to "publish first" and claim the Patent.

This may not make much difference to the actual protection afforded intellectual property as for international protection you have to take out patents in so many countries anyway and the rules are multifarious. The US tops the bill though as first filing allows patenting of a competitor's unpatented product even if it's already on sale, and most patents seem to be granted without much scrutiny. There seems to be a general assumption that post-grant litigation will sort out any resulting mess. Of course it can, but only if the offended litigant can afford to pursue it. Oh the joys of unregulated markets.

I'd love to see some evidence of your statements. You are correct about the high cost of litigation, but that's about it.

"I'd love to see some evidence of your statements."

Square corners?

Here you go Pat Att(orney?). Evidence of low patent quality being 'sorted out' at great expense in post grant litigation. The patents are for [1]generic data transmission , in this example, from a ventilator.

It took me less than 30 seconds to find this despite cases like this not hitting the news every week ("Dog Bites Postman!"). Wilful ignorance? Fingers in ears while shouting "LA LA LA"? I am sure you know damn well what is going on but it is to your financial advantage to pretend otherwise.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/new-low-bad-patent-patent-troll-sues-ventilator-company

"Among the EU Member States, Germany had by far the highest number of patent applications to the EPO in 2014, some 20.7 thousand (36.5 % of the EU-28 total), followed by France (9.1 thousand), the United Kingdom (5.3 thousand), Italy (4.2 thousand), the Netherlands (3.5 thousand) and Sweden (3.4 thousand)."

"Applications from EU-28 Member States reached 56.6 thousand in 2014 (or 39.6 % of the total)"

UK doesn't look so critical to the system, and even after Brexit EU is still a large union which would benefit from unified systems - if done well, of course. It would leave more time to deal with systems outside.

For the EPO to have any validity, all its senior officials need to be replaced. Do not leave anyone above the level of janitor from the current organisation and give it a proper set of rules that can only be amended with the agreement of the European Parliament to stop a future Battistelli from being able to do a power grab. Also change its constitution to be subordinate to the normal justice system rather than as Battistelli managed to argue independent from them.

Alternatively just abolish the EPO completely.

"For the EPO to have any validity, [...] with the agreement of the European Parliament"

Please note the EPO is not an EU body! So beyond the control of the European Parliament.

That's not to say the EPO wouldn't benefit from some reforms, but that's beyond my ken.

Putting too much power over how patents are dealt with into a single system and reducing the oversight power of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, especially when it comes to complying with the European Convention on Human Rights, could have serious consequences.

I don't understand why EP and CJEU would have reduced oversight as a result of this plan? My first assumption would be that it would increase. Generally, after having read all the horror stories about the EPO, I would be in favour to have them report to a parliament and answerable to a court.

There is also a strong likelihood that the UPC will benefit big business and leave smaller companies and businesses at a disadvantage.

Why would this benefit bigger businesses over smaller businesses? If my small business can go through one patent procedure with one court to get a patent in 30-odd countries that would surely be cheaper and easier than to go through ten different procedures for the ten most important European markets. I would think that only big businesses have the pockets to do the latter.

The reason why the EPO (a non-EU orgnaisation) has turned into a fiefdom is precisely due to lack of oversight.

"I don't understand why EP and CJEU would have reduced oversight as a result of this plan? My first assumption would be that it would increase. Generally, after having read all the horror stories about the EPO, I would be in favour to have them report to a parliament and answerable to a court."

You might be in favour of them reporting to the EU Parliament, but the problem is that they are not.

Well, one of the problems. The EU Parliament sometimes seems to forget *it* is supposed to serve *us*, the citizens of the EU - we are not here to serve it. That's why some people voted for Brexit.

People keep giving opinions on why people voted they way they did in the referendum. It turns out there actually was a [1]survey .

[1] https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/02/how-the-uk-voted-on-brexit-and-why-a-refresher/