Wingnut-watchers may remember A.J. Delgado, author of a book of culture-war mad libs. Turns out she's been picked up by National Review. Among her maiden efforts: A long essay that's ostensibly a review of a new film loosely based on Jim Jones and Jonestown (Ti West's The Sacrament), but mainly about how the People's Temple was a traditional communist cell -- you know, sort of like the American Spring loonies are traditional Republicans -- and people who call it a cult are just covering up for Marxism and Marxists like Jerry Brown and Harvey Milk, who must be exposed.

It was with some trepidation that I attended a screening: Would West eschew any mention of Jones’s leftism, as others addressing the subject had before him? Would West blast organized religion as the culprit, rather than Marxism itself?

 That's what Mr. and Mrs. Moviegoer will want to know! Delgado has mixed impressions:

But the big question is: Does the film represent the truth — i.e., Jones’s leftism? The answer is yes, somewhat. While not overtly highlighting Jones’s ideology or that of The People’s Temple, West certainly does not omit it. In a gripping, seminal scene where Sam interviews [Jones stand-in] Father, the ideology is in full view, for anyone willing to listen closely. Father bemoans issues at the top of any leftist’s top-gripes list: “poverty, violence, greed, and racism.” (A majority of Jonestown’s inhabitants were African American — another angle West truthfully represents.)

When Father mentions heroes who have been shot down for “trying to help others,” those heroes are: Malcolm X, MLK, JFK, and RFK. Not all leftists but not all exactly right-wing idols, either.

So, we know he's a commie because he's against poverty, violence, greed, and racism, is surrounded by black people, and admires Martin Luther King.  But Delgado is concerned that Father also uses a cross and hymns, which might give filmgoers the false impression that Christianity can be used to confuse people, and "reaches out" to West, who politely explains to her that it's a movie. Delgado for some reason finds herself vindicated:

Father quotes Scripture in the film but, if one notices, only to the extent that it can be distorted for his social-justice arguments. Jones did the same, quoting Jesus Christ and Scripture only as red meat for his socialist sermons.

Whereas real Christians only use Jesus to denigrate homosexuals. I predict this young lady will go far.

The IPKat is grateful to Bernie McDonald of GJE, who pointed the Kat to this subject matter and has posted an excellent commentary here, and also to Tim Belcher, new colleague at EIP, for writing assistance with this piece.

As previously noted by this Kat, to ratify the UPC Agreement, member states will have to amend their national law to define infringement in a manner consistent with the treaty (see here).  As pointed out in that post, the scope of the “Bolar” exemption codified in Article 27(k)(l) of the UPC Agreement gives rise to some concerns about how this exemption will be harmonised, since current national laws have implemented “corresponding” exemptions in different ways, and some of these seem incompatible with the Agreement wording.

Some countries (such as the UK) use the same “narrow” implementation as used in the UPC, excluding only trials for obtaining marketing authorisation for generics:
[Section 60(5)(i) UKPA77]
(5) An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if - (i) it consists of –
(i) an act done in conducting a study, test or trial which is necessary for and is conducted with a view to the application of paragraphs 1 to 5 of article 13 of Directive 2001/82/EC or paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 10 of Directive 2001/83/EC, or
(ii) any other act which is required for the purpose of the application of those paragraphs.

In contrast, some countries (such as Germany) implement the exemption in a broad manner (which for simplicity, this moggy will refer to as “Bolar+” in this post).  The “Bolar+” wording exempts from infringement studies and trials in relation to obtaining any marketing authorization, not simply generics, thereby facilitating research and obtaining marketing approval in relation to innovative drugs and treatments.  There are a number of online articles explaining the different scope of the Bolar-type exemption in different countries including Germany, for example this useful piece from Taylor Wessing.

Following a consultation on the topic (the outcome of which is published here [pdf report]), the UKIPO announced that the Government decided to implement the “broad” implementation of the Bolar exemptions favoured by other countries, by amendment to the Patents Act.  Many observers, including this Kat, thought this was nugatory; since it appeared that any change to the “Bolar” wording would have to be reversed on ratifying the UPC to implement its “narrow” definition.

However, the proposed legislative changes (you can see the full draft Statutory Instrument here) do not alter the wording of s.60(5) of the Patents Act; the wording of this subsection broadly matches and is entirely consistent with the wording of Article 27 UPC.

Instead, the proposed change is to codify clinical trials as work done for experimental purposes under subsection (5)(b) of the Act:
(5) An act which, apart from this subsection, would constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention shall not do so if - (b) it is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention.

New subsection (6D) in section 60 of the Act, would provide that “[f]or the purposes of subsection (5)(b), anything done in or for the purposes of a medicinal product assessment which would otherwise constitute an infringement of a patent for an invention is to be regarded as done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.”  Further subsections (6E) to (6G) provide definitions to interpret the scope of this exclusion.

In leaving subsection 60(5) of the Act unchanged, the UK Act contains equivalent wording to Article 27 UPC.  The UPC does not codify the meaning of “experimental purposes” – further definition in the UK Act is therefore on the face of it not inconsistent with the UPC.


This moggy is thus intrigued as to whether these new subsections, pendant on subsection 60(5) UKPA, could be used to implement a definition of infringement that is both consistent with the UPC and different from that in other states (where there are no corresponding provisions that this Kat knows of).  The current “Bolar+” wording used in Germany does not seem consistent with the UPC wording and this Kat supposes that it must be narrowed [although Merpel would welcome any thoughts on this from a German specialist practitioner]; has the UKIPO found wording that will allow a similar provision to be installed whilst maintaining consistency with the UPC and allowing its ratification?  “Cat-like cunning” Merpel says.


If the proposed legislative changes in the UK were found to be not in conflict with the UPC Agreement, perhaps countries currently using the “Bolar+” wording could implement similar provisions.  However, presumably not all member states will necessarily do so.

According to Article 5(3) of the Unitary Patent Regulation, infringement of a Unitary patent will be governed by the national law of the state in which the proprietor has its residence, principal place of business or place of business (or, if none of these exist within a participating EU member state, then German law).  As has been pointed out by the IPKat here, this means the law relating "to European patents with unitary effect" (not the pre-existing law), and so this Kat thought up until now that this could only mean a new law, harmonised by the ratification procedure in each participating member state (which would be interpreted only by the judgments of the UPC in the future).  But this ruse of statutory drafting, with internal redefinition of existing terms, means that he is now not so sure. Could differing national laws on unitary patent infringement then lead to a situation in which clinical trials would not infringe, for example, a unitary patent owned by a UK company, but which would infringe a unitary patent owned by a company based in another member state?  “Humdinger” notes Merpel.

Such a scenario could lead to the undesirable situation in which companies set up unitary patent-holding subsidiaries in states which do not implement such a legislative tool, thereby restricting the scope for clinical trials in all states.  Forum shopping in this manner will not appease those skeptical about the UPC.

As usual when endeavouring to interpret freshly minted legislation, the IPKat welcomes comments and other views on the topic.  Over to you, dear readers...

• ¿Quien es Josep Albors? ¿De donde eres?  ¿A qué te dedicas?.

• ¿Cuales son tu Hobbies? Se comenta por la red que tienes más pasaportes usados que James Bond...

• Aunque todos los informáticos lo somos de vocación... ¿a qué te dedicarías si no estuvieses en el mundo de la seguridad?.

• Cuales crees que son las amenazas o retos a los que se enfrenta la seguridad informática en estos tiempos que corren?.

• Como puede Eset Nod 32 Ontinet ayudarnos?.

• Cual es la postura de Eset Ontinet ante el hacking ético y esa estrecha línea que separa el bien y el mal?

• Qué logotipos suelen llevar tus "Gadget" ? Manzanas, ventanas?.

• De tu época como Director Técnico seguro que tienes muchas anécdotas "técnicas" con usuarios y problemas variopintos...alguna que reseñar?.

• Dentro de tu faceta de divulgador mediante el blog o en tus numerosas charlas, cuales son los aspectos que más te gustan ? alguno que te disguste? quizás el fenómeno fans? :-)

• Todos conocemos el mito que habla sobre las empresas de antivirus y la creación de los mismos... todos conocemos los fichajes de talentos en Malware y fraude que contratan las empresas... de verdad podemos fiarnos?.

• Como todos sabemos sufrimos un espionaje constante o al menos una "monitorización" por parte de gobiernos y entidades. Opinas que hay que regular más la red de redes para garantizar "el buen uso" o eres partidario de la autorregulación.

• Alguna cosa que quieras decir a tu público?