(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/BlackWinnaYoshi/status/1334571456735416323 | Dec 04 07:31 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 07:31 |
| schestowitz | Makes sense, since they have been bought by an advertising corporation (https://techrights.org/2019/10/16/startpage-is-surveillance | Dec 04 07:31 |
| schestowitz | ). I don't recommend using Startpage in general because they block Tor/VPN/Pale Moon since at least November: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/search.h | Dec 04 07:31 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 07:31 |
| schestowitz | [07:38] <zoobab> UPC impact assessment has been facked? | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | [07:42] <schestowitz> yes | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | 31/10/2018 | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | [CSC] Requests for Review: cases closed? (another CSC paper censored by the Office) | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | The EPO is currently preventing the publication of a CSC paper on the Intranet. Following a request from the CSC we hereby provide you with the CSC publication and its accompanying text. | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 07:42 |
| schestowitz | [07:50] <zoobab> damn | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | [07:51] <zoobab> we found it strange this whole thing with 2009 | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | [07:51] <zoobab> the total lack of "analysis" of the costs of the new court | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | [07:52] <zoobab> UK scrutiny committee requested a new impact assessment | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | [07:52] <zoobab> the fact that she refused says everythhing | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | [07:52] <zoobab> now it perfectly makes sense | Dec 04 07:57 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1334763626109005824 | Dec 04 08:02 |
| schestowitz | "European Commission (Margot Frohlinger) did not want to redo the UPC impact assessment of 2009, guess why: "The UPC impact assessment has been facked since the beginning not to attract critics of the cost for SMEs." #sme #upc #fraud" | Dec 04 08:02 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/02/response-to-epo-consultation-dont-impose-oral-proceedings-by-videoconference/ | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Presumably, the EPO President, the Administrative Council, the BOAC ,the EPO’s Boards of Appeal and the UK Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) all share the opinion of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Civil Courts of England and Wales, Rule 1.1, that the over-riding objective of any court system is to enable the court to deal with cases “justly”. Such an over-riding objective is correctly placed at para 1.1 of | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | the Rules. Compare Article 1 of the Basic Law in Germany, which itself recites what one might describe as an over-riding objective. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Reflect on what Adam Smith argued: that any human society needs ONLY two absolute imperatives if it is to survive and prosper. Everything else follows, provided these two essentials are adhered to. First, a system of “easy” taxes. By “easy” I take him to mean a system that commands broad acceptance and is perceived as fair. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | The second imperative for a stable society is a functioning system for dispensing justice fairly. Smith wrote that in the 18th century. Not much change then, from then till the end of the 20th century, when Lord Woolf drew up the reformed CPR with its “over-riding objective”. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part01#:~:text=%20The%20overriding%20objective%20%201%20%281%29%20These,so%20far%20as%20is%20practicable%20%E2%80%93%20More%20 | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | The question arises, to what extent is it compatible with such an over-riding objective to allow a TBA to decide, in its infinite wisdom, unrestrained by any other impediment, to decree that the decisive Oral Proceedings shall take place as a video conference. One gathers that CIPA sees absolutely no problem with allowing an individual Board such discretion. So who does? Anybody here? | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Kley Hansjörg | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | DECEMBER 3, 2020 AT 8:53 PM | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Here is a comment from Hansjörg Kley Switzerland. This comment has been posted on http://www.patentepi.org and requires an epi account. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | For all other interested perons please find my comment in German on | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | https://www.kley.ch | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | or on deep link | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | https://www.kley.ch/hansjoerg/patrecht/br_epa_2020Z11EP_2020-11-23.pdf | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | DECEMBER 3, 2020 AT 11:11 PM | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | It is a pity that epi’s contribution to the discussion on Art 14aRPBA20 was not mentioned in the blog. The position of epi is reasonable and acceptable. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | From most of the comments published up to know, it becomes clear that Art 15a should at most be valid during the pandemic. I would even claim that not only after the pandemic, but as well during it, OP should only be held in form of ViCo if the parties agree. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | Do not tell me that there is a major problem and justice would be denied. This is a fig leaf to justify discretionary measures which have the only purpose to get files done at any cost and at any rate. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | The BA have been understaffed for many years and this was not the wish of the users, but only due to the former head of the EPO who considered the members of the BA a bunch of lazy people. | Dec 04 09:22 |
| schestowitz | The throughput of files in DG1 has increased tremendously in the last years simply in order for the cash to flow in as quickly as possible. Examiners should grant as quickly as possible, so that the member states can get their annual fees as quickly as possible. Now we are even told that the EPO is nearly broke. I am awaiting this reason to be given to force OP in form of ViCo before the first instance. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | That CIPA is in favour of OP as ViCo is not surprising. Some UK firms of representatives have been advertising for instance in LinkedIn about their capacity to hold OP in form of ViCo. It is for UK firms a possibility of gaining ground over firms sitting in Munich or having opened branches in Munich. In any case this should not be determining in whether OP can only be held in form of ViCo. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | The argument of reducing the carbon foot footprint by not coming to Munich is at best fallacious. For parties not residing or having a place of business within the member states of the EPC they have to be represented by a qualified representative. Strictly speaking, there is thus only the necessity for a party to send one representative to any OP. This also apply to parties having residing or having a place of business within an EPC | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | member state. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | It is therefore not necessary for a party to come to Europe or from the far end of it. All the costs linked with the travel of for instance non-EPC patent attorneys and the various staff members of companies cannot be determining in whether OP can only be held in form of ViCo. In any case those persons can at best be accompanying persons in the meaning of G 4/95, as they have no procedural right to speak. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | Be it in presence or in ViCo, the bare minimum should be that the parties are sitting in front of full deciding body, be it a first instance division or a BA. Sitting in front of three individual images of members of the deciding body all sitting in different locations cannot be considered as holding a proper OP, whatever the management of the EPO or of the BA want us to believe. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | Last but not least, what is valid before the BA should be mutatis mutandis valid for divisions of first instance. If the EPO and the BA want to force the parties to only have OP inform of ViCo, they should have the decency to amend the EPC, not just its rules of procedure. Only holding OP in form of ViCo is a major change of the letter and the spirit of the EPC. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | Neither the president of the office, nor the chairman of the BA or of the BOAC have the legitimacy to alter the EPC in the way they are presently forcing upon the users of the EP system. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | I very much doubt that the BA will publish the responses to the consultation. We might get a total number of entries, but no more. If the vast majority of the replies is negative, they will certainly not publish them or give a figure. Should the vast majority of the replies be positive, we might see them and get a figure. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | When introducing the obligation for parties to consult the register before coming to OP before OD, the president claimed that it was to answer the wish of the users. It would be interesting to know which users were meant. I do not know any. When doing the same for forcing people to check whether the location of an OP on the premises of the EPO, the BA did not even try to hide behind the users. | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | In the early days of the EPO “Anmelderfreundlichkeit”, best translated by “user friendliness”, was a key objective and contributed greatly to the success of the EPO. Nowadays the users of the EP system have been degraded to fee contributors whereby the management of the EPO and of the BA decides ex-officio what is good for them. Enough is enough! | Dec 04 09:23 |
| schestowitz | " | Dec 04 09:23 |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Dec 04 20:23 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Dec 04 20:24 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.