● 06.25.17

●● Wouter Pors Under Fire for Lying or Manipulating in the Name of the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Team UPC knows no other way…

Summary: The argument between Team UPC and other patent professionals (without a lot of eggs in the UPC basket) heats up as Wouter Pors resorts to desperate measures and Bristows belatedly admits constitutional problems in the UK

Wouter Pors from Bird & Bird is not an unknown character. He is one of the main cheerleaders or perpetrators of the UPC (he would profit from it) and he habitually gets slammed for promoting it using comments outside his employer’s (or Kluwer) site, where comment sections either don’t exist or are closely guarded (from criticism). In Kluwer, for example, two Bristows authors have been caught (and called out on) censoring comments they did not like, e.g. 1, 2, 3]. To some degree, these Bristows employees also had UPC-hostile comments rubbed out of existence in IP Kat. There’s a systematic campaign of censorship and propaganda and it has always been less effective in comment sections where the moderator is not with Team UPC. When Bristows writes something in IP Kat (notably about the UPC) it’s always lies and self-promotional pipe dreams; accordingly, virtually all the comments are negative. The readers are not as dumb as Bristows wants them to be and Bristows is impressing nobody but EPO management like Battistelli.

After Pors got massively slammed for his attack on a judge (the messenger) earlier this morning someone refuted him as follows (comment approved).

In order to support “wild_guess”, one could say that Mr Pors has, once again, missed an opportunity to keep quiet.Now the matter has landed at the German Constitutional Court (BVerG), we should not forget that the BVerG is allowed to examine the matter on its own motion and dig much deeper as to the alleged lack of quorum in both houses of parliament. It is to be hope that it puts a question to the CJEU.Such a question should have been put to the CJEU before continuing. It would at least have brought certainty, I would even say “early certainty” (any resemblance ……..).In the bloghttp://kluwerpatentblog.com/2017/06/22/challenges-challenging-unified-patent-court-opt-gap-rules/ [alludes to this latest piece of Alan Johnson and Luke Maunder from Bristows]the authors, from Bristows, have brought out a possible constitutional problem in the UK.What an irony…..

Well, Bristows knowingly demolished democracy all along. They consistently lied for it too (they still do, as recently as a couple of days ago).

Sadly, most UPC critics prefer to remain anonymous, so we often alone in debunking the lies of Team UPC. More firms and more professionals need to become vocal and truthful; we need to bury the UPC once and for all; it would also help assure restoration of order at the EPO. As various people — including EPO insiders — sometimes point out, the UPC has a lot to do with Battistelli’s utter chaos. █

“When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”

–Dr. Glyn Moody

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.