Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 25 2020, @05:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the UPC-seal-of-approval dept.

brexit means brexit

UK formally abandons Europe's Unified Patent Court, Germany plans to move forward nevertheless:

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.

In a written statement in the House of Commons on Monday, the British undersecretary for science, research and innovation Amanda Solloway noted that: "Today, by means of a Note Verbale, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has withdrawn its ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court."

The reason is, of course Brexit. "In view of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom no longer wishes to be a party to the Unified Patent Court system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the Government's aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation," she said.

[...] The whole idea of the UPC has been fought for over a decade now, making many its adherents borderline fanatical in making it a reality, even more so given frequent setbacks. In their unerring support, however, many seem willing to overlook or turn a blind eye to serious problems, not least of which is the mess that is the European Patent Office (EPO).

[...] The EPO is, of course, a big fan of the UPC and insists the UK leaving is a mere trifle to the larger European dream of a single patent system; a system that would give it significantly more power:

"These economic benefits for European companies and especially SMEs will not be affected by the announcement of the United Kingdom," it insisted in its submission to the German government.

"Even without the UK, the UP package will lead to significant simplification and cost reduction for the companies of the participating EU member states, which is also largely recognized by European companies."

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @12:17AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @12:17AM (#1026366)

    Huawei Fights Back

    "Looks like Huawei is going to fight back against the U.S. for the sanctions it has imposed on the company... using the U.S. patent system, which recently made some changes to FRAND agreements (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) to make it even easier to sue." [] [] []

    I tried digging a little about what changes were made and this looks to be what is being discussed.

    Justice Department’s New Position on Patents, Standard Setting, and Injunctions

    "A FRAND commitment ... requires the patent owner to license to all participants in the standard upon payment of a FRAND royalty.

    In December 2019, the Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a formal policy statement on remedies for SEPs. The new statement declares that injunctions should be available for SEPs on the same terms as for patents generally. It also states in a footnote that the antitrust laws are not generally applicable to FRAND disputes." [] [] []

    This looks bad no? If companies wish to voluntarily enter into an agreement to cross license patents why should the government get to dictate the terms? No one is forcing anyone to enter into the agreement, if a patent holder doesn't like the terms of the agreement simply don't enter. This seems to go against contract law (but you will have all the IP zealots claiming that copy'right' is also about protecting contract law).

    Also how does not allowing SEPs to prohibit injunctions to those that voluntarily sign up to the SEPs help spur innovation. It would seem that prohibiting injunctions and requiring reasonable licensing rates to those that sign up would help spur innovation as it would allow more companies to benefit from being able to do more stuff instead of locking out everyone from being able to do anything. Isn't the point of patents to spur, and not to hinder, innovation? The individual inventor that doesn't want to sign up to the SEPs doesn't have to but if a collective group wants to pool their patents and agree not to sue each other for an injunction and to cross license with each other at reasonable rates then allowing them to voluntarily enter into such an agreement to do so would spur innovation. Them agreeing on their patents doesn't affect the person that doesn't wish to enter into the agreement in a way that harms overall innovation.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @12:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @12:41AM (#1026372)

    Uhm ... it looks like the original Slashdot post got removed, probably by accident while Slashdot was having all of those problems with their comments.

    Here is another link that links to the Slashdot article. []