German court reveals reason for Europe-wide patent system freeze The German federal court has finally revealed why it ordered a halt to the ratification of the Europe-wide Unified Patent Court. The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) unexpectedly slammed the brakes on the UPC back in June, sparking speculation in the intellectual property world as to why – was it a procedural matter? Was it …
"sanity, in politics" WTF?!!
"it was necessary for there to be a specific vote in the German Parliament (Bundestag) to approve the divestment of sovereign powers."
So obviously the UK couldn't possibly ratify it, since firstly we're leaving and secondly, it would involve the further transfer of 'sovereignty', agreed? well no T.May and here Brexit monkeys fully intend to ratify the UPC ! :O
"The UK is pressing on with legislation that is required for the ratification of the UPC Agreement by the UK; secondary legislation in the form of an Order on Privileges and Immunities for the Unified Patent Court were laid in Parliament under the International Organisations Act 1968 today (26 June 2017).
Separate legislation will be laid in the Scottish Parliament in due course. This is the final legislative step in the UK’s ratification procedure and once it has been passed the UK will be able to formally ratify the UPC Agreement."
[ http://www.hgf.com/updates/news/2017/06/uk-presses-on-with-ratification-of-the-upc-agreement/ ]
It does look like business as usual at Westminster; the politicians haven't learnt from the rap on the knuckles they received in the In/Out referendum...
What is being ratified is the EU Unified Patent Court, which for the UK to agree to be subject to, requires the transfer of some 'sovereignty' to the EU.
The laugh is that Brexit is all about the taking back of 'sovereignty' from Brussels by the very same organisation (ie. Westminster politicians) that gave 'sovereignty' away to Brussels...
Secondly, all three major Westminster political parties gave assurances that no further 'sovereignty' would be given away without a referendum..
@Roland
What exactly is wrong with getting together to deal with patents. Theres economies of sale. One patent organisation costing £200 million a year to run? Or 20odd patent organisations costing £200 million each per year to run. Plus the benefit to the applicants having to go through one process instead off 20odd.
Do the math . . .
Can we cancel this Brexit nonsense please - it doesn't add up.
@Mark 110
What exactly is wrong with getting together to deal with patents. Theres economies of sale.
Nothing!
I'm all for it, along with remaining in the EEA, Customs Union, Eurotom and the EU, in part because of the economies of scale!
Can we cancel this Brexit nonsense please - it doesn't add up.
It would be nice! Unfortunately T.May et al are giving the impression they are fully committed to Brexit...
But I fully agree with you, Brexit is nonsense. Clearly some in government realise this and hence why they are attempting to get Parliament to ratify something that is at odds with the government's publicly stated direction of travel... What is going to be the icing on the cake is when one or other Brexit monkey stands up and supports the ratification of the UPC. Which brings us back to the discussion point "sanity, in politics" :)
@Big John - re: Voters...
I suggest as time goes by, it is becoming clear that those who actually want to go through with Brexit - at any cost, are only a vocal minority of those who voted leave...
However, it would seem that the government's biggest problem, having committed to "honour the referendum result" and delivering 'Brexit', is defining a strategy that will enable them to stand up and say the UK has left the EU, whilst retaining all the advantages of membership...
Given the content of the positional papers and such things as the UPC bill, it would not surprise me if the UK effectively renews it's membership immediately following the Brexit declaration, so business and life can continue as normal... Thus my rationale for saying Brexit is nonsense...
> "I suggest as time goes by, it is becoming clear that those who actually want to go through with Brexit - at any cost, are only a vocal minority of those who voted leave..."
How is it becoming clear? I'm in the US and have no direct knowledge, but I become skeptical when someone speaks about a controversial vote by claiming the winners don't really want the thing they won. That sort of thing happens a lot here in the US, where the left claims the conservatives always vote stupidly and against their "own interests," without ever really proving that case (except to themselves).
Perhaps it's becoming clear because of subsequent polling? But that same polling had the Brexiters losing by a substantial margin before the actual vote, just as Trump was slated to lose big to Hillary Clinton by most polls, and we all know how that turned out.
In the end the only polls one can really believe are the official ones. Say, what about asking for a "revote" on the Brexit issue? Has anyone done that yet? And if not, why not?
@Big John - We had a general election, those who really wanted a hard Brexit and stuff the consequences/costs could have voted for UKIP - the only party offering that approach to Brexit; UKIP was practically wiped out...
As the Brexit process unfolds other factors are also coming out - which the press are picking up on, that are contributing to the viewpoint that Brexit might not be such a good idea...
Say, what about asking for a "revote" on the Brexit issue? Has anyone done that yet? And if not, why not?
Given the recent poll failings, plus not getting the result they wanted and thus the political fallout, I suspect that Trump is more likely to win a second term than the UK to have another referendum on the EU and Brexit...
But I suspect that the problem is that many are framing Brexit in terms of appeasing those who voted Leave and explicitly appeasing the more vocal "Brexit at any cost" supporters and thus ignoring the fact that 2-in-3 voters did not explicitly vote for Brexit, plus from the analysis of the original referendum result it is clear that all those who voted for Leave did not vote for the same Leave.
Thus in seeking a Brexit agreement, the Conservatives firstly have to agree among themselves - something they are finding increasingly difficult :) and secondly agree on something that can carry the Brexit label and hence enable them to declare they have delivered 'Brexit'. Given this agreement is going to upset various parts of the electorate, the question is which parts are you prepared to upset? I suggest you can reasonably safely marginalise the extremes ie. those who want Brexit at any cost...
Hey Europeans,
Sort this out. Your tech sector deserves much better, as do your citizens.
As for you UKers, well you seem to have given yourselves a jolly good brexit. I propose sixteen years on the naughty chair, facing the wall, and we'll talk afterwards.
Kind regards,
Ah Beng
"Its like giving the Italian cop your passport with 1000 lire note in it on a huge scale."
I don't know about Italy but my company had to engage a lawyer in Mexico to get me off the charge of failing to bribe a customs official not having exactly the right picture in my business visa.
It was a double whammy because the customs official had a special, illegible version of the passport stamp so that they could also claim you had not had your passport properly stamped.
I have never had that happen in Italy, even in the days of Lire.
This post has been deleted by its author
---
1) that Batshitstelli is *still* employed at all
2) that it appears that *somewhere* there is both some legal and political will to document why he will be tossed under the first bus down the street after his term is up
3) That Kieran and I agree 100% on this ego-maniacal tyrant.
In actual fact, the EPO has got nothing to do with the UPC* and the Batistelli story, entertaining and simultaneously depressing as it is, is completely irrelevant to the German holdup.
*The EPO will grant the patents that will be litigated in the UPC but it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the UPC itself.
Yes and no. Under Battistelli the EPO has been a driving force and is, for example, training the judges who will be patent courts in each member state. While it is an EU patent, the EU has little or no in-house knowledge. Without the EPO the system would be a non-starter.
"the EPO has got nothing to do with the UPC"
Apart from granting them – and, for years, spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting UPC, is a huge cheerleader and advocate of UPC, and stands to gain a lot from the UPC coming into force.
So yeah, nothing to do with UPC, lol.
C.
The problem with any unified patent court is that it will become part of the patent industry. And thus strongly inclined to widen the scope of patentability. That is what happened in the US.
Currently, the law states strongly that software "as such" is not patentable. The EPO interprets that to mean "unless it runs on a computer"(!), and thus grants lots of patents, which are probably not enforceable by any normal national court. But a unified patent court controlled by the EPO would almost certainly decide that software is in fact patentable.
The fight against European software patents has been long and ongoing. Do you really want to follow the Americans there?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
