Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | <li> | Jul 05 07:51 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://liliputing.com/2020/07/this-15-6-inch-linux-laptop-features-an-amd-ryzen-processor.html">This 15.6 inch Linux laptop features an AMD Ryzen processor</a></h5> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://liliputing.com/2020/07/this-15-6-inch-linux-laptop-features-an-amd-ryzen-processor.html">This ) | Jul 05 07:51 | |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <p>The notebook supports WiFi 6 and Bluetooth 5.1, has a 1MP webcam, stereo speakers, and a backlit keyboard. It’s powered by a 91Wh battery and comes with a 65 watt charger. </p> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <p> You can choose an operating system from a variety of popular GNU/Linux distributions including Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Elementary OS, and Zorin. </p></blockquote></li> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <li> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/rpi4-manjaro-kde-2004.html">Raspberry Pi 4 & Manjaro Plasma 20.04 - Jolly good?</a></h5> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 404 @ https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/rpi4-manjaro-kde-2004.html">Raspberry ) | Jul 05 07:51 | |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <p>Manjaro Plasma for ARM v8 (Pi 4 among others) is an interesting concept. But it's not mature enough just yet. There are too many teething problems, chief among them being video performance and heating. The conflict with package manager is also troubling, as it renders the system unusable with ordinary users. Various other bugs and papercuts, including some that I've not really mentioned, the styling and | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | branding, plus the leftovers from the image building process all leave their negative mark on the total score. </p> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | <p> From the usability perspective, Manjaro Plasma runs just fine. The speed is quite decent when it comes to how quick and responsive the desktop is. I am quite pleased with the overall concept - this is an advanced and complete desktop solution - weighed down with sub-optimal performance and bugs. I hope these will be resolved soon, because I would then even consider Manjaro for my mini-real production setup, | Jul 05 07:51 |
| schestowitz | and that would be quite a step from where my workflow normally floweth. At the moment, Raspberry Pi OS remains the optimal if not ideal distro for Raspberry Pi 4. Well, we shall see how this evolves. Take care and stay tuned. </p></blockquote></li> | Jul 05 07:51 |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jul 05 09:28 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Jul 05 09:28 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-patent-examination-board-peb.html?showComment=1593534799656#c1403222826239512010 | Jul 05 09:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The Patent Examination Board (PEB) releases further information on the 2020 UK patent exams - The IPKat | Jul 05 09:51 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | That they are holding the exams online is definitely something that must be applauded. Well done, PEB! Now please don't screw up the execution. Make it open book for starters. Half your invigilation problems will be resolved. Secondly, extra time must be given for printing the question paper. Third, do away with the scanner requirement. Photos of the answer sheets can be taken using the phone and emailed to PEB. Not many people have | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | scanners at home. Extra time must be given for this also at the end of the exam. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:45:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Can PEB or CIPA provide a webinar please and show candidates how it works. A guide/run through would help candidates a lot. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:51:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Moving online is definitely a step in the right direction and PEB should be praised. It should have been modernised a while ago and not due to the pandemic. Going forwards, I encourage PEB to modernise the exam process even more like regular testing and open book. I hope the EQE will also learn to modernise. This profession has been doing the same thing for a long time and it is now time to move on. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 19:52:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | I think what PEB has done this year has been fantastic - moving the exams online and at home is definitely the correct way. I do echo some concerns/issues and agree that extra time will be required but in general, this is good. Look forward to hearing more from PEB. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 20:00:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | I can certainly see that many candidates here think the online move is a positive one and I agree. There will be issues at my firm as it is mostly an open plan office so taking it at home is a big relief. The noise (even with headphones) in an open plan setting is not practicable. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | I do think that making it open book would help ease the burden on everyone and minimise the disruption. As someone mentions above, most law exams are now taken with an open book as memorising pages of law is not the main focus. If its about practice and real life, then lets make the exam as close as real life as possible. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Moving it online is a gigantic leap after many request for years to move the exams online. Printing, scanning and other tethering problems should hopefully be ironed out. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Finally, PEB engaging with the students & staff is a good thing and lets hope this may continue. The EQE on the other hand needs to sort themselves out. Cancelling EQE March 2021 would be utterly unacceptable. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 20:05:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | To be fair to PEB, they have done well not to cancel the exams. As an EQE candidate last year, I can tell you the pain suffered when they cancelled it last minute. At least we know it is going ahead albeit in a different format. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Some practice would help so I welcome the opportunity to do a mock trial first and a step by step guide on what to do (release a document) would be useful. Everyone is learning how to adapt to this new format so hopefully things are not to strict. We want the exams to be fair and reasonable but at the same time, to also be understanding. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousTuesday, 30 June 2020 at 20:09:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | The problem is the potential of local lockdowns and the restrictions on travel. If we sign up to do the exams in the office and then the government bans non-essential travel, those candidates who signed up to do the exam in office will be completely "screwed" and against government guidelines (potentially breaking the law which does not look good as a legal representative). | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | I think doing the exam at home should be preferred and PEB could make this clearer in their statement. The use of the office should only be necessary if doing the exam is truly not possible at home. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 10:02:00 BST | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | Yes good point, but would travelling to an exam be considered "essential" travel? I don't know. | Jul 05 09:51 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 10:39:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | There is no law against non-essential travel in England. It is a guidleine only. You would not be breaking the law going to the office to sit an exam, because there is no such law in England. The Welsh 5 mile limit is also not law. The law says "local". And, anyway, this "local" limit is due to be lifted in early July. Dont know about Scotland/NI. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 10:48:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | As we have seen with Leicester, local lockdown can occur. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Although you mentioned that it is only guidelines, going against these guidelines is immoral and irresponsible. There are bigger things than exams. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | PEB should just make it clear that exams taken at home is PREFERABLY and only essential travel into the office if there is no other way of taking it at home. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Otherwise, we are going to get candidates (and from other firms) travelling all over the place and potentially mixing with others. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 07:29:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Although I welcome an online format, I do think screen time is a problem. Yes we can increase the time to accommodate printing etc but it is unfair to expect candidates to stare at the screen constantly for 5-6 hours. There needs to be breaks in between. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 10:29:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | It does go against recommended HSE guidelines to look at a screen this long - will PEB provide the recommended 5-10 minute break every hour? https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/vdubreaks.htm | Jul 05 09:52 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.hse.gov.uk | Should VDU users be given breaks? – health and safety at work | Jul 05 09:52 | |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 12:22:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Food for thought, other possibilities include reducing the exam content if possible so that candidates can still be well within the 4 hours or 5 hours exam time. For example, take 1 question away from FD1 paper or take 1 claim away from FD4. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 12:23:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Having mini-breaks in between makes sense. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 07:32:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | I would be in favour of reducing exam content so that we stick to the original exam times to accommodate the extra burden rather having an increase in exam time. What do others think. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 07:37:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Moving the exams online is a smart and popular move by PEB. It will also save costs in the long run as they no longer need to hire out exam venues. One for the future but can they consider reducing exam fees. £500 is a lot of an individual candidate to pay and firms usually pay for 1 sitting or 1 retake. It's a lot of financial burden for an individual candidate. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 10:26:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | I agree with this comment, many candidates pay for the examinations themselves (due to their firms failure to cover resits) and this year the candidates are being burdened with the extra requirement that they must purchase a printer and scanner. I imagine not many candidates in this modern age have a scanner at home. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 12:17:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Agree with this too. There is a lack of support (finances for exam fees, well-being, training/career progression) in general from firms for candidates especially for re-takers. It is a problem and I guess its another part of the profession that desperately needs modernising/innovating. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 12:20:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | The exams fees is quite a burden on an individual candidate. Needs looking into it. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 15:12:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Look at IPREGs response to the mercer review. They asked PEB to be more transparent about where the exam fees go. Though that was to encourage competition amongst providers, not because it was costing trainees to much to qualify i believe. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | My guess is that the exam fees need to be high to fund raise for the £200k reserve PEB are building. Not sure why they need that amount of money when no costs are paid after they know demand (e.g. no venue is booked before they know numbers, no marking fees are paid before people have sat the exam). Must be expecting a few years on the naughty step for bad behaviour. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 10:01:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | I appreciate that PEB is trying to modernise and embrace the change to online format, especially from home. There are some concerns as mentioned above. I assume candidates are permitted to have snacks/drinks at home during the exam but I guess further guidance later will make this all clear. | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 11:22:00 BST | Jul 05 09:52 |
| schestowitz | I'm disappointed that in the context of modernising the logistical arrangements for the paper, the PEB still refuses to discuss whether there remains a need for a closed book exam. My long standing opinion has been that papers which are supposedly (or at least, in accordance with the copy-pasted comments on examiner's reports on an annual basis) there to test fitness for practice should not require an arbitrary amount of | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | memorisation that is not relevant to modern patent practice. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Allowing open book exams would make this transition far easier and would not necessitate the installation of what amounts essentially to legitimised spyware on a personal computer, with no knowledge of how the data will be stored/used and no guarantee of subsequent data security and privacy. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousWednesday, 1 July 2020 at 15:17:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Don't understand why P6 isn't just made controlled coursework. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | People sitting it in firms have that "designated person" as the invigilator, people not sitting it in work have to use the virtual invigilator. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Receive the paper at 9, work on it when you want, rest your eyes when you want, controlled so no discussions, submit by 5 or whenever you want. I've never understood the need to rush P6. Extra time won't save a bad candidate but could help someone around 45-50 who just needs more time to think things through. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 10:45:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | As a relatively small firm owner, my opinion is that our trainee should sit the papers here in our meeting room where we have good (and back-up) broadband. We can set-up everything they need (scanners/printers, web cams). I propose a senior member of the firm (or in-house) (eg a fellow of CIPA) should be sent the paper before the start time so they can print it out for the candidate. I suggest that their mentor within their firm | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | should have the same duty as the candidate not to help the candidate cheat, and that this person should stand as guarantor for their behaviour during the exams. That person would then receive the papers at the end of the time and scan them in/send them off to PEB. I appreciate for people not in firms/in-house other arrangements would be necessary but I can't imagine there are many such people. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Replies | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 19:13:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | It needs to be done in an office room on their own otherwise noise from computer typing or other interferences will play a part. They are going to need plenty of space and most meeting rooms are not set up to hold 4 or 5 individual big desks (sufficient for a computer and keyboard and space for papers) well spaced apart. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 19:26:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Since many in the profession are working from home, some - mainly those who have rented a place e. g. in London have actually moved quite far away from the where the firm is based to work from home. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | I'm not against taking the exam in an office setting but taking the exam at home would be much better in order to avoid travelling unnecessarily, especially on public transport in places cities like London. Off course, everyone wants the exams to be fair and I believe no one wants to cheat. The consequences of doing so is clear from PEB announcement. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 10:57:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | There are many things wrong with PEB but I do appreciate PEB (or at least Sarah) is trying to modernise the assessment procedure. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | By way of feedback, an exam is a very outdated method and many now are looking at regular testing or coursework options. This is very true for many other professions and other law courses too. I'm not saying exams have not got a place in future assessments but handwriting for hours is not the way to go. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 11:00:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Online testing is the way forward and its such a shame it took a pandemic for PEB to realise this. The EQEs have already started modernising a few years ago by having pilot computer schemes. I hope the online assessment sticks around longer after this year and its NOT just being offered for this year only. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 11:13:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Disband the PEB and move it to a university. They are set up to deal with situations like this (as has already been shown). | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Meanwhile the PEB seem to be congratulating themselves for a job well done despite not releasing any details about how this will actually work. Hope IPREG actually grow some teeth and do something (I've given up on CIPA ever doing anything with regard to the PEB, they are one and the same to me). | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousThursday, 2 July 2020 at 19:06:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Online examination is definitely a welcome step. Having the exams open book is probably better to discuss for future exams rather than making too many changes now. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | AnonymousFriday, 3 July 2020 at 13:58:00 BST | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | I am a CIPA Fellow. I'm not involved in PEB. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | 1. What seems clear from the responses above is that a workplace setting suits some people, home suits others. PEB has provided both options. Consider the pros and cons of each, and take your pick. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | 2. Desk size / noise. This is not a new challenge caused by online exams, traditional exam halls also have cramped desks and noise from nearby candidates. Noise can be mitigated by buying quieter keyboards, they are not hugely expensive. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | 3. For those based away from the exam centres, the proposed arrangements overcome the disadvantages of being tired from travel, sleeping in an unfamiliar bed and the unpredictability of noise levels in hotels. For those living close to exam centres, you might not be aware of how much these factors can affect performance. So, the proposed arrangements might level the playing field for candidates. | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | 4. Change is difficult. I do not envy this year's candidates. However, the options are clear: sit the exam this year or wait until next year. Most patent attorneys fail one or more exams. For many of them, it's their first failure, and they soon realise that it is not a disaster, more an inconvenience or slight dent to pride. I accept that it is annoying to have to commit even more personal time to study for the resit(s). | Jul 05 09:53 |
| schestowitz | 5. As Sarah Boxall requests, please submit constructive feedback. From my own view: bashing the PEB is not helpful - they are trying to achieve a very difficult thing. They won't achieve perfection. Also, remember that Person A's idea of perfection probably looks rather different to Person B's idea of perfection ... and PEB is trying to create a solution that works for hundreds of candidates. It seems that PEB is still working on | Jul 05 09:54 |
| schestowitz | the solution, which makes it understandable that they cannot provide all details yet. | Jul 05 09:54 |
| schestowitz | 6. I wish everyone success with preparing for and sitting the exams - I appreciate that it is even more challenging than in previous years. | Jul 05 09:54 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 09:54 |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 10:02 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 10:02 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jul 05 10:39 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Jul 05 10:39 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 11:54 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 11:54 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | Jul 05 12:08 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jul 05 12:09 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 12:21 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 12:24 | |
| *AVRS (~AVRS@wikimedia/AVRS) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 13:11 | |
| *rianne has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jul 05 14:47 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 14:47 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jul 05 16:39 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jul 05 16:40 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Jul 05 16:49 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 16:52 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 16:55 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 16:55 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/jimmyroybloom/status/1279788322722889728 | Jul 05 17:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@jimmyroybloom: .. https://t.co/4gDZ0xBrP4 | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/bharat_indo/status/1279689529645953024 | Jul 05 17:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@bharat_indo: @schestowitz https://t.co/2kFbB75H2K an all in VC developed in India will be launching this month and will have dir… https://t.co/EkxJqoTd1b | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 17:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.ailive.in | Al Live | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@bharat_indo: @schestowitz https://t.co/2kFbB75H2K an all in VC developed in India will be launching this month and will have dir… https://t.co/EkxJqoTd1b | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| schestowitz | http://AILIVE.IN an all in VC developed in India will be launching this month and will have direct competition with #JioMeet | Jul 05 17:32 |
| schestowitz | #DigitalIndia #AatmaNirbharBharat | Jul 05 17:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-AILIVE.IN | Al Live | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| schestowitz | @AiConferencing | Jul 05 17:32 |
| schestowitz | #startupIndia | Jul 05 17:32 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 17:32 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/ionheartus/status/1279689388553879552 | Jul 05 17:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@ionheartus: @schestowitz no really he is want his own stable and the deal has yet to be worked out. https://t.co/oG40Oho6Gz | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s). ( status 0 @ https://ionlibrary.com/ ) | Jul 05 17:32 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/ionheartus/status/1279677576261382145 | Jul 05 17:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@ionheartus: @schestowitz makeing money and building stuff is easy but building somthing real is a different story all together. | Jul 05 17:33 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/ionheartus/status/1279677401329524737 | Jul 05 17:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@ionheartus: @schestowitz I just need the cash to fix the short game he put me in to try to over take my systems. | Jul 05 17:33 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/ionheartus/status/1279677185645821952 | Jul 05 17:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@ionheartus: @schestowitz hey sir hit me UP I'll teach you how the country comes back | Jul 05 17:33 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jul 05 20:33 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jul 05 20:33 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 20:50 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 20:50 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:27 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:28 | |
| *AVRS has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *swaggboi has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *hook54321 has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *libertybox has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *nergal[m] has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *ChanServ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *moriah has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *rianne has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *TechrightsBN has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *hl has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *MinceR has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *AVRS (~AVRS@wikimedia/AVRS) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *swaggboi (~swaggboi@slackware.uk/supporter/swaggboi) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *hl (~hl@unaffiliated/hl) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *moriah (~quassel@unaffiliated/kierra) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ccashgsfzlhlxhke) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *nergal[m] (nergalmatr@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-pxnxhqyzowdwxszf) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *MinceR (mincer@unaffiliated/mincer) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *TechrightsBN (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *egan.freenode.net gives channel operator status to acer-box__ schestowitz ChanServ | Jul 05 21:30 | |
| *hook54321 has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:31 | |
| *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ccashgsfzlhlxhke) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:31 | |
| *hook54321 has quit (Max SendQ exceeded) | Jul 05 21:32 | |
| *libertybox has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:34 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:34 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:34 | |
| *moriah has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:34 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:35 | |
| *moriah (~quassel@unaffiliated/kierra) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:35 | |
| *rianne has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:36 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zoigyyleymxdubwf) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *TechrightsBN has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *hl has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:37 | |
| *MinceR has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *TechrightsBN (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *hl (~hl@unaffiliated/hl) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *egan.freenode.net gives channel operator status to acer-box__ schestowitz | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *MinceR (mincer@unaffiliated/mincer) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:38 | |
| *nergal[m] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jul 05 21:40 | |
| *ChanServ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:41 | |
| *ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:41 | |
| *egan.freenode.net gives channel operator status to ChanServ | Jul 05 21:41 | |
| *nergal[m] (nergalmatr@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-gceewhafhwehuasi) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:44 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:49 | |
| *moriah has quit (*.net *.split) | Jul 05 21:49 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:50 | |
| *moriah (~quassel@unaffiliated/kierra) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:50 | |
| *hook54321 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Jul 05 21:53 | |
| *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tkmizkpzwerzrbst) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 21:54 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/22/period-of-provisional-application-unified-patent-court-agreement-can-start-this-year/?doing_wp_cron=1593984896.5791850090026855468750 | Jul 05 22:35 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | 'Period of provisional application Unified Patent Court Agreement can start this year' - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jul 05 22:35 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | No question asked about the constitutional complaints. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | No mention of the court decision on “this agreement is only open to EU member states”. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | No mention neither of the more expensive costs of defense for SMEs: | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | https://www.stjerna.de/files/Unipat-SMEs.pdf | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | IPO: “The costs of the new system are likely to hit SMEs the hardest.” | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 22, 2020 AT 7:05 PM | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | I’m enjoying this thread, and laughing at the words picked out by commenter “One of those” in particular that extremely revealing choice of words “As far as I can see….” to open the sentence. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | People old enough to have reached positions where they decide the question UPCA Y/N? will well remember Simon & Garfunkel back in the 1970’s singing “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. No different, I would say, between hearing, seeing and selective memory. The cognitive dissonance of the human brain is a timeless wonder, not least in the corridors of power in Brussels. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | As an Englishman in Germany, I find it striking, how difficult people find it, to distinguish fact from the opinion of the leading expert. It seems to be a bit of a “chicken and egg” situation. Is it the predisposition to trust the expert that comes first? Or is it the self-confidence with which the experts deliver their opinion that predisposes people to accept them? | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | And why the English scepticism (even ridicule) of self-important pontifications of experts? Perhaps it comes from our adversarial system of civil litigation, where expert evidence is a staple but where it is inevitable, at trial, under cross-examination, one or other of the opposing experts is going to be exposed as unconvincing. Knowing this already, even before they deliver their written report/opinion, experts giving witness | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | evidence in civil litigation in England, are extremely cautious, in every word they write, for their very reputation, the basis of their exalted status, is at stake. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | I recall that old story about the English, busy losing the Boer War and the reporter on site for the London Times sending back to London one gloomy report after another. Exasperated, his Editor sent him a cablegram which read “Send news of victories”. I wonder, does Mr Tilmann (consultant to Hogan Lovells, one of the world’s most prominent international litigation law firms) sometimes feel a bit like that reporter? | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | Readers, I heartily recommend the current issue of der Spiegel and its eyebrow-raising report on the activities of Philipp Amthor, in pursuance of his employment as Consultant to another large international law firm, White & Case, extremely well-embedded in government circles, notably in Brussels.. | Jul 05 22:35 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 22, 2020 AT 7:52 PM | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Did you expect anything else from a lobbyist like Mr Tilmann? | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | The term lobbyist is appropriate when you compare what Mr Tilmann has said in his article in GRUR 2020, 441, section VI.2.b) about the London Section of the central Division with the statement of the Ministry of Justice, Part B of the explanatory memorandum. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | That the Minister of Justice has published a declaration shortly after the publication of the decision of the GFCC that the ratification will re-start during the present legislative period has certainly not been written by the Minister herself, but by her administration. The lobbyists in the BMJV have been active soon after the decision of the GFCC was not the one expected. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | It is manifest that Mr Tilmann has held the hand of the civil servants in the ministry. In both documents it is stated, without any legal justification whatsoever that, once UK has left the UPCA, the London Section of the Central Division goes to Paris and it only later that different location might have to be designated. Me Véron, another lobbyist for the UPC, even went as far to claim that this is a gift from Brexit which should | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | not be trumpeted around. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | It is hard to believe that educated people can be politically naïve enough to come up with such a statement, given the difficult negotiations that preceded the splitting of the central division into three locations. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | The UK has announced that it will not participate in the UPC, as it does not accept the supremacy of the CJEU, but it has not made any attempt to officially withdraw from the UPCA. As the UPCA does not have an exit clause, only the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) could be of application. It is debatable whether it could be Art 25(2) VCLT as suggested by Mr Tilmann or Art 31(3) VCLT as suggested by the Ministry. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | In the case of Art 25(2) VCLT, the UPCA needs at least to be provisionally entered into force and the UK having send in a notification of withdrawal. By not participating and not sending a notice of withdrawal, the UK is in the comfortable position to blow up the UPCA. This would allow the UK to set up an improved litigation system in direct competition with the UPC. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | In the case of Art 31(3) VCLT, it requires a political declaration of the remaining member states. When seeing how eager Italy was to receive the Life Science Section of the Central Division either in Milan or Torino, it is doubtful that such a declaration will be given. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | On the other hand, as has been noted by Concerned Observer in a previous post, Art 56(2) VCLT provides that the UK will remain a member state to the UPCA for 12 months after its withdrawal. Why should Art 25(2) VCLT prevail? This is the private opinion of a private person, and even the document of the Ministry of Justice makes no reference to Art 2582) VCLT! One wonders why. The explanatory note mentions Art 31(3) VCLT. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Whatever Mr Tilmann claims and the lawyers in the Ministry of Justice say, unless the status of the London section of the Central Division is clarified upfront, i.e. that Art 7(2) UPCA is amended, it appears foolish for Germany to ratify the UPC. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | It is surprising that in the draft bill of ratification and the explanatory memorandum , there is not one word about a further possible constitutional challenge of the ratification, cf. Point 166 of the decision of the GFCC. It is thus not correct for Mr Tilmann to claim that “the explanatory memorandum of the ratifying law expressly contradicts such an assumption.” | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | In view of the decision of the GFCC about the purchase of bonds by the ECB, it is in any case quite daring to come to this conclusion, whether one agrees or not with the decision of the GFCC. Justice Huber has made his position clear in an interview to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Simply ignoring such a question or belittling it like Mr Tilman does, shows once more who is interested in the UPC coming whatever it takes. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | When Mr Tilmann speaks of the “patent owners worldwide” he is clearly saying who will be the beneficiaries of the UPC. 70% of European patent owners sit outside the EU. Offering them a single platform to attack European firms or European patent owners is something which will have dear consequences for Europe, but will allow Tilmann and consorts to fill their pockets. And this is the only interest they have in the whole UPC | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | business. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | When taking into account that the average number of validations of patents in EU member states, the UPC is as needed as a hole in the head. Only some very limited industries validate in a lot of EU member states, and even less validate in all EU member states. But those are figures which are superbly ignored by Mr Tilmann and consorts. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Why is it that countries like Poland and the Czech Republic refuse to ratify the UPCA? If the UPC is as wonderful as claimed by Mr Tilmann, they should be jumping at it. And yet, it is after careful evaluation of the risk for their industry, they decided not to go further with the UPC. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | When Mr Tilmann claims that “The SMEs belong to the beneficial owners of the new system” it is just laughable and distorting reality. European SME are simply frightened to be attacked by multinational corporations, as they cannot resist the financial pressure which goes with it. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | From the 10% of patents granted by the EPO to SMEs within the EU how many do validate in more than 3 states? Alone the fee for a nullity action is nearly double to the fee for infringement. It is thus very clear who should be the prime beneficiaries of the UPC. Certainly not SMEs. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | I invite Mr Tilmann to read the article of Mr. Dimitris Xenos, “The Impact of the European Patent System on SMEs and National States and the Advent of Unitary Patent”, published in Prometheus, Vol. 36, No. 1 (März 2020), S. 51-68. The conclusions are very clear to any people genuinely looking at the number of applications from SMEs and granted to SMEs: the UPC is not for them. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | It is not the ridiculous document of the EPO showing 12(!) case of allegedly successful SMEs with European Patents which will alter the conclusions drawn by Mr Xenos. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 23, 2020 AT 5:30 PM | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Max – there are other instances where the choice of words is extremely revealing. For example: | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Q1: Is it normal in Germany not to publish the names of the organizations and associations that are being consulted? | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | A1: Yes | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Interpretation: It is “normal” when one wishes to seek feedback only from a group of hand-picked organisations. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Q2: What kind of feedback can be expected? | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | A2: It is expected that the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Interpretation: We know the feedback will be overwhelmingly positive because we have only sought feedback from those who we know have a positive view. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | Whilst these are indeed trivial examples, they reveal a brazen and shameless attitude that demonstrates no concern for democratic legitimacy. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 24, 2020 AT 5:27 PM | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | In another forum, I made some comments on this subject. Feedback has encouraged me to post them here. Slightly edited, I deliver them below: | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | The system of patent litigation that we have today is not broken and does not need fixing. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | At the moment, every prospective litigant, from individual inventor, through SME, to large corporation, can find in the present system the litigation “tool” that suits his business need. Both England and Germany have in place the procedural devices that keep things simple and efficient, drive down legal costs, and so allow Little Daniel to take on Giant Goliath in the courts, on equal terms, and win. Such “streamlined | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | proceedings” are anathema to the biggest and highest-powered, lawyered-up litigation shops, not at all what the proponents of the UPC like. What is positively good in the present system is, for them, what’s so wrong with the system we have today.. | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | You only have to read the US patent law blogs to see how quickly and a patent litigation regime can deteriorate, if the wrong levers of power are pulled and pushed. As of now, we have in Europe very healthy competition between the courts of DE, GB, NL. I should hate to see that replaced by a system where the competition for business is, instead, between the international law firms. It was a disaster for the accountancy profession, | Jul 05 22:36 |
| schestowitz | and the same disaster should not be visited upon the patent and patent litigation professionals. Robin Jacob used to joke that “We can learn a lot from the Americans: Watch what they do, and then make sure not to make the same mistake.” I’m thinking of the law of eligibility/patentability in the USA, and what a grotesque mess has been caused by the ping-pong between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which mess is | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | totally destructive to innovation. Ask Paul Cole, who writes Amicus Curiae briefs to the US Supreme Court on behalf of CIPA. Let us try NOT accidentally to give birth to a shambles of equal magnitude, here in Europe. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | The number of cases where a cause is litigated in Europe over multiple jurisdictions is very small, both absolutely and relatively. In the national courts of those Member States where patent litigation is routine, there are a great many cases, with claimants of all different sizes. Little Daniel choose the jurisdiction that fits best, procedurally, with his business needs. Giant Goliath chooses the jurisdiction that will best | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | squeeze his (very likely equally big) competitor into negotiating a settlement. The present system is no impediment, either to the Global Titans of this world or to the SME’s. It is a myth spread by interests hostile to Europe that it acts as an impediment to innovation and efficiency in Europe. If there is sluggishness in innovation in Europe (and there is indeed) the cure lies not with scrapping a functional system of patent | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | litigation but, rather, with stimulus to investors contemplating putting money into technical innovation. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Indeed, the present rivalry between the jurisdictions within the EU, the pan-European role of the “GBK” and the never-ending criticism of the procedural peculiarities in individual jurisdictions, has a disinfectant effect and keeps the judges everywhere “honest”. This “honesty” is precious and fragile. Don’t tinker with the system, don’t screw it up, because the loss of this honesty outweighs any good that could come | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | out of the UPCA as presently constituted. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | I suspect that the political circles keen on the UPCA want it as a “victory” to decorate their record as “warriors for innovation”. If so, they are gullible, useful idiots, and self-delusional. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Prof. Dr. Bojan Pretnar | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 24, 2020 AT 7:06 PM | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | PREBO | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | I wonder why Germany, in its decision to ratify UPCA, is not taking the following facts into consideration: | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | 1. The very initial and substantial aim of UPCA was to ensure EU-wide patent protection affordable also – or rather primarily – to SMEs; however, this objective has been completely ignored, and Stjerna is absolutely correct in pointing to this fact. A small additional illustration how non-friendly is UPCA is the fact that UPCA maintenance fees are the sum of “Top 4” filing EU countries – an amount that most of SMEs could | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | not afford (a more SMEs-friendly alternative that the average amount of national fees of participating parties ought to determine UPCA fees was suggested by Pretnar in GRUR Int 12/2018, where a different approach towards true EU unitary patent is suggested as well). | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | 2. EU legislation against patent trolling practices is non-existent, what eventually is going to facilitate big (EU?) companies to get rid off SMEs on EU market when UPCA enters into force. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | 3. At least Spain, Poland and Czech Republic (population of these 3 countries more than 86mio EU citizens) shall not be UPCA Member States; clearly, UPCA in its current form shall not be a true unitary EU patent even if it enters into force through accession of Germany. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | To conclude, as a citizen of a small EU country, I would be happy if Germany in its forthcoming EU presidency would launch a new initiative for a new EU unitary patent system. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 24, 2020 AT 11:42 PM | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Dear Max Drei, | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Thanks for your comment, which shows from another angle how unnecessary the whole UPC business is. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | I have a few things to add. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | The EU has lived for more than half a century without a centralised court for patent matters. Has it come out maimed and in dear need of such a complicated construct like the UPC? By no means! | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | There is no possibility to divide the EU with the help of patents as the CJEU has a long time ago decided upon the exhaustion of patents rights. Why is it then necessary to try to block patents in every possible member state of the EU-UPCA? This is the more so since the number of validations in a plurality of EU member states is very low. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | As perfectly explained by Max Drei, the number of true transnational litigations over Europe is extremely limited. And companies wanting to litigate in a lot of member states can certainly afford the corresponding costs. At a glance I can quote two: pemetrexed disodium and Epilady/Improver. Both patents are or were held by big multinational corporations with deep enough pockets to afford the costs. Why bother the European industry | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | and especially SMEs with such a monster like the UPC? | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | The UPC is only necessary for those wanting to fill their already deep pockets and those people are ready to come up with anything which can lure politicians in such a trap as the UPC. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | The regular meeting between judges dealing with patents in the EPO member states have done more to harmonisation of the interpretation of the EPC throughout Europe than the UPC might ever do, and that only for part of the EU. The extra layer of case law the UPC will bring, will not help to clarify the situation. It will just complicate matters. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Contrary to what Mr Jacob has said, the UPC will not be the leading court in Europe which will be followed by all other courts, and the number of oppositions at the EPO will not diminish, be it only for the fact that the fee is many orders of magnitude than that of a nullity action before the UPC. And in the EPO, every party bears its own costs and simultaneous interpretation is for free. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | If something should be done is to extend the period for opposition to the whole life of the patent. But then qualified representatives and not just lawyers can act. And that is not what lawyers pushing the EPC want, so they need a fig leaf, SMEs, to pretend that the UPC is needed. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | One should not forget that lawyers first wanted to have exclusive representation rights before the UPC. It is only due to the protestation of qualified representatives that the latter can act before the UPC provided they have acquired a litigator’s certificate, cf. Art 48(2) UPCA. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Just an example to show how the drafters of the Rules of Procedure have tried to squeeze out qualified representatives from the UPC: | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | According to Art 48(4) UPCA representatives of the parties may be assisted by “patent attorneys”, who shall be allowed to speak at hearings of the Court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | According to R 292(3) UPCA the “patent attorneys” shall be allowed to speak at hearings of the Court | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | –at the discretion of the Court and | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | –subject to the representative’s responsibility to coordinate the presentation of a party’s case. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | In other words, they may at best have a position similar to that of accompanying persons in the meaning of G 4/95, i.e. they have no procedural right to speak before the UPC. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | If it was the intention of the legislator to also allow representatives under Art 134 EPC, under conditions, to address the UPC, this intention is counteracted by the Rules of Procedure concocted by a select group of lawyers having co-opted each other. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | I even have heard at one of the UPC Conference organised at the EPO, Mr Hoying expressing its reservations about technical judges. In his opinion, they are not needed. Mr Hoying is one of the members of said select group of lawyers…… That technical judges might not be impressed by the rhetoric capabilities of lawyers might be an explanation for his position. | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jul 05 22:37 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 25, 2020 AT 11:49 AM | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Good stuff from Attentive. Anybody who has had a career as a patent attorney knows well that in patent litigation the hard part (hard = legal costs) is in the area of validity. Is the disclosure “enabling”? Is the “invention2 the “same” one as in the priority filing? Is the claimed subject matter “obvious” to the person of ordinary skill in the art? | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | In comparison, deciding whether any given act infringes the claim, or what shall be the relief from infringement, is child’s play. Even lawyers can do that entry level stuff. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Now, you well-meaning politicians, bent on throwing the baby out with the bath-water, listen up, please. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Over the last 40 years, the hard work, the heavy lifting, to develop a pan-European law of patent validity, has been the patent attorneys and the EPO Boards of Appeal. The result is a body of case law set out in The White Book published by the EPO. To quote Robin Jacob again, it is this book that enjoys pride of place on his desk as patents judge. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | But it is a red rag to the attorneys at law in the world-bestriding big litigation shops. Having been more or less bystanders in the matter of patent validity for 40 years is increasingly infuriating to them. They are increasingly minded to “correct” the situation and appropriate the lucrative work for themselves, whereupon (dear politicians) the number of billable hours per patent case will go through the roof. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | OK, patent attorney firms also know how to bill (patent) attorney hours. But what they bill for is the irreducible minimum of hours to win the argument, that argument being overwhelmingly technology-based. Look to the USA if you don’t believe me, to see how patent litigation is conducted, with thousands upon thousands of attorney hours billed, with very little of it concerning issues of technology. Judges don’t understand the | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | technical issues crucial to validity so decide cases on issues of equity (which litigating party has the white hat and which is the Black Hat). This is NOT a good look and not the way patent litigation in Europe should be encouraged to follow. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | As I say, again and again, echoing Joni Mitchell, you don’t realise what you’ve got, how precious it is, till its gone. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 26, 2020 AT 7:45 AM | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | I would like to draw the attention of the readers to the publication today in Lexology of an Article of Mr Bolko Ehlgen from Linklaters LLP: | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | German UPC Ratification 2.0 – Can the quick fix be the solution? | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e0405ff9-a129-4971-bbfe-3fbd56222652 | Jul 05 22:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.lexology.com | German UPC Ratification 2.0 - Can the quick fix be the solution? - Lexology | Jul 05 22:38 | |
| schestowitz | The nub of the comment lies in the following: | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | “The idea of the draft is to bring the UPC into force now despite the UK‘s decision not to participate and to settle the follow-up questions later. The ‚no’ from London obviously changes some of the fundamental assumptions of the UK, at a far deeper level than the question of where to relocate the part of the central division that was planned for London. These changes need to be discussed by all remaining UPC members and not | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | cut short by the German ratification. Interestingly, the draft specifically mentions that the central division cannot stay in London if the UK does not participate; Paris and Munich will take over London‘s role in the interim. One cannot exclude that a quick ratification could be used to keep some more competencies with the Munich division, as this may be the status quo when members begin to debate who else should host a central | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | division – potentially an important shift in bargaining position. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | The other element that raises some question marks is whether this ratification is really constitutionally bullet-proof. The court dismissed the remaining substantive challenges, but ‚only‘ as inadmissible because they were not properly substantiated. Some interpret parts of the judgement almost as an invitation to follow up on these points in case of a further ratification attempt. They may get a chance to test their luck before | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | the court soon. The real question will then probably not be whether such a challenge succeeds but whether the court would stop the ratification process again. It is hard to imagine the UPC surviving another three years of impasse. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Lastly, one should not count out the Parliament in this one. In 2017, the ratification act was passed without a handful of members in attendance. Not necessarily a sign of disinterest but rather of consensus. With constitutional questions looming and a changed landscape of participants, it may not be so easy the next time around. Parlamentarians may wish to use this for a real debate on the project with an open outcome or a call for | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | a clear proposal on how to deal with the UK‘s absence. Crisis is often called the time of the executive branch. With Corona-related restrictions lifting, we are currently seeing a revitalisation of legislative activity and wish for oversight of executive action that may not stop with the reactions to the pandemic but also engulf the UPC ratification” | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | In other words, even a lawyer from an international litigation firm, who could eventually benefit from the UPC, emits very strong doubts about the way the German Ministry of Justice (BMJV) wants to push the ratification through. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | May be somebody could draw the attention of the Minister to this article, so she can realise what her administration is concocting behind her back. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | But for Mr Tilmann and his friends in the BMJV all is OK! | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Blessed are the simple-minded, for they shall see the kingdom of heaven… | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Jan Verbist | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 26, 2020 AT 12:34 PM | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | “I’m thinking of the law of eligibility/patentability in the USA, and what a grotesque mess has been caused by the ping-pong between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which mess is totally destructive to innovation. Ask Paul Cole, who writes Amicus Curiae briefs to the US Supreme Court on behalf of CIPA. Let us try NOT accidentally to give birth to a shambles of equal magnitude, here in Europe.” | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | SCOTUS just corrected those deviant patent courts, 15 times over the last 15 years. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | The patent industry pretext SCOTUS jurisprudence is ‘inconsistent’, others will say CAFC is deviant and dangerous for society. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | Patent law does not live in its own bubble. | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/25/a-snooze-reminder/ | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | "Thanks for that entertaining piece. For me (and Wikipedia) the name Marcus Smith is associated with judgements of a rather different kind. Being a judge of the patents court in England is a position where one is just as open to criticism as playing at outside half (play-maker) in a top professional Rugby Union team. One needs great bravery, quick hands, lovely footwork and (to cope with the criticism) abundant self-confidence and a | Jul 05 22:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | A snooze reminder? - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jul 05 22:38 | |
| schestowitz | robust thick skin. Bravo, Judge Marcus Smith, for stepping up to the plate, putting your neck on the line, and hearing such a tricky case. Moderate language from the Court of Appeal is not just very English but highly appropriate."\ | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | https://techinsights.linklaters.com/post/102g9e2/german-upc-ratification-2-0-can-the-quick-fix-be-the-solution | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 22:38 |
| schestowitz | For those who have been following the year-long saga around the UPC, 2020 has already provided several turns of events. First, the UK, after initially expressing support for the project despite Brexit, announced that it would no longer be willing to participate in the UPC. Then, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled the German ratification act for the UPC Agreement unconstitutional because the Bundestag did not approve it | Jul 05 22:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techinsights.linklaters.com | German UPC Ratification 2.0 - Can the quick fix be the solution?, Bolko Ehlgen | Jul 05 22:39 | |
| schestowitz | with the required two-thirds majority. | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | This essentially killed all hopes that the new pan- European patent court system, which would have revolutionised Europe‘s patent landscape, would come into force soon. Some have even proclaimed the project dead. But, as the saying goes, those proclaimed dead live longer. Germany now started its first attempt to reanimate the UPC amidst the Corona crisis: the Ministry of Justice published a renewed draft ratification act that is | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | intended to be passed with the required two-thirds majority. This seeks to overcome the constitutional flaw of the first ratification, seemingly a quick and easy fix on the formal level. | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | But the real question lies at a deeper level. The idea of the draft is to bring the UPC into force now despite the UK‘s decision not to participate and to settle the follow-up questions later. The ‚no’ from London obviously changes some of the fundamental assumptions of the UK, at a far deeper level than the question of where to relocate the part of the central division that was planned for London. These changes need to be | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | discussed by all remaining UPC members and not cut short by the German ratification. Interestingly, the draft specifically mentions that the central division cannot stay in London if the UK does not participate; Paris and Munich will take over London‘s role in the interim. One cannot exclude that a quick ratification could be used to keep some more competencies with the Munich division, as this may be the status quo when members | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | begin to debate who else should host a central division - potentially an important shift in bargaining position. | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | The other element that raises some question marks is whether this ratification is really constitutionally bullet-proof. The court dismissed the remaining substantive challenges, but ‚only‘ as inadmissible because they were not properly substantiated. Some interpret parts of the judgement almost as an invitation to follow up on these points in case of a further ratification attempt. They may get a chance to test their luck before | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | the court soon. The real question will then probably not be whether such a challenge succeeds but whether the court would stop the ratification process again. It is hard to imagine the UPC surviving another three years of impasse. | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | Lastly, one should not count out the Parliament in this one. In 2017, the ratification act was passed without a handful of members in attendance. Not necessarily a sign of disinterest but rather of consensus. With constitutional questions looming and a changed landscape of participants, it may not be so easy the next time around. Parlamentarians may wish to use this for a real debate on the project with an open outcome or a call for | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | a clear proposal on how to deal with the UK‘s absence. Crisis is often called the time of the executive branch. With Corona-related restrictions lifting, we are currently seeing a revitalisation of legislative activity and wish for oversight of executive action that may not stop with the reactions to the pandemic but also engulf the UPC ratification. After all, as many times as the UPC has been thought dead but keeps coming back | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | to life, new obstacles have appeared just when the finish line was in sight. | Jul 05 22:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 05 22:39 |
| *AVRS has quit (Quit: WeeChat 2.8) | Jul 05 23:02 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jul 05 23:55 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 23:55 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (Changing host) | Jul 05 23:55 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jul 05 23:55 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz | Jul 05 23:55 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!