●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, November 06, 2021 ●● ● Nov 06 [00:13] *altlink_0d5 has quit (connection closed) [00:13] *altlink_b25 (~altlink_b25@2f7u5j6f87p9g.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [00:53] *wallacer has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [00:53] *wallacer (~quassel@6bsu33ajs4zs4.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [01:19] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:19] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:26] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [01:27] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [01:35] *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [02:01] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:01] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:03] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [02:03] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [02:49] *leah has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:49] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [02:55] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:55] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:59] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [02:59] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [03:01] *altlink_b25 has quit (connection closed) [03:01] *altlink_b22 (~altlink_b22@2f7u5j6f87p9g.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [03:41] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:41] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [04:02] *leah has quit (connection closed) [04:02] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [04:56] *DaemonFC has quit (connection closed) [04:59] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [04:59] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [07:04] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [07:10] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@9vib856syp9u2.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [07:29] *leah has quit (connection closed) [07:30] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [07:59] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [08:00] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [08:10] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [08:10] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/11/01/in-the-aftermath-of-g-1-21-the-future-of-video-proceedings-in-the-epo/ [08:10] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | In the aftermath of G 1/21: The Future of Video Proceedings in the EPO - Kluwer Patent Blog [08:10] schestowitz " [08:10] schestowitz Max Drei [08:10] schestowitz NOVEMBER 1, 2021 AT 8:39 PM [08:10] schestowitz I guess we shall never know, but I will continue to wonder what part the external judge members of the EBA played, in the deliberations of the Board which were the foundation of this Decision. What a pity there are no such external members of the EPOs Administrative Council, the employer of the EPOs President and his management team. [08:10] schestowitz REPLY [08:10] schestowitz Alessandro Cossu [08:10] schestowitz NOVEMBER 4, 2021 AT 2:21 PM [08:10] schestowitz I would not underestimate the role of the Chairman, Mr Blumer, as well as of Mr Bokor and the rapporteur, Mr van der Eijk. [08:10] schestowitz REPLY [08:10] schestowitz DXThomas [08:10] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 3:48 AM [08:10] schestowitz Dear Thorsten, [08:10] schestowitz Thanks for your clear and thorough analysis of G 1/21. [08:10] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [08:10] schestowitz You come to the a similar conclusion as I do in my comments on LinkedIn. [08:10] schestowitz I would add the following: [08:10] schestowitz The EPO is a service organisation which is actually paid by its users. And within the EPC and G 1/21 there is no room for mandatory OP by ViCo in first instance as default setting outside the pandemic. [08:10] schestowitz That conclusions for the first instance will have to be drawn following G 1/21 is manifest. [08:10] schestowitz The presidents representatives insisted heavily during the OP in July that the answer to the question referred will have an effect for the whole office and not just for the BA. It is now for EPOs management to act accordingly to what it has claimed during the OP. [08:11] schestowitz The choice of the format of OP should be left to the parties. [08:11] schestowitz The default setting outside the pandemic is in-person OP. This applies as well to OP in first instance or before the BA as Art 116 does not distinguish between the two. [08:11] schestowitz The EPO should thus offer the possibility to hold OP by ViCo for the parties if one or both wish so but not to force parties in this form of OP. [08:11] schestowitz I would add a further point: the deciding body should sit together during OP and not be scattered around during OP by ViCo. The EPC might be actually silent on this, but it is so manifestly clear that the deciding body should be sitting together that the founders of the EPC did not bother to specify it. [08:11] schestowitz Contrary to what the presidents representatives claimed during the OP in G 1/21 there is a right for in-person OP and this right cannot be dispensed with for the convenience of the EPO. [08:11] schestowitz Some people might have felt that in G 1/21, the EBA missed an opportunity to decide for the whole office. I do not think so. I would rather think that the EBA as triggered a time bomb which will force the EPO to review and amend its position on OP by ViCo to the benefit of its users. [08:11] schestowitz REPLY [08:11] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:11] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 3:58 AM [08:11] schestowitz Dear Max Drei, [08:11] schestowitz I claim that the decision would have looked quite differently with the original composition of the EBA. The well known quartet would have most probably answered in the sense wished by EPOs management. [08:11] schestowitz Probably at the price of a dynamic interpretation as in G 3/19!! [08:11] schestowitz At the same time you can guess why the answer was limited to the BA. [08:11] schestowitz As long as the AC tolerates to be a mere rubber stamping body for the decisions taken by EPOs management the situation at the EPO will not improve [08:11] schestowitz REPLY [08:11] schestowitz Concerned observer [08:11] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 11:33 AM [08:11] schestowitz What happens next is indeed the crucial question. Will it be like a Shakespearean comedy, where plenty of errors are made by the principal actors, but by happy accident those errors ultimately cause no harm? Or will it be more like a Shakespearean tragedy, where sinister plots hatched by malign characters end up wreaking havoc for all concerned? [08:11] schestowitz We shall have to wait and see. In the meantime, the (lack of) immediate reaction from the EPO perhaps suggests that there is still some doubt about how this will all play out. [08:11] schestowitz Checking the EPOs website, it is still impossible to discern whether G 1/21 has had any impact upon the EPOs practice. Indeed, the EPOs Coronavirus web page (https://www.epo.org/news-events/covid-19.html) still points to practice on VICOs that is now highly suspect in the light of G 1/21 (for example, Oral proceedings in examination will continue to be held by VICO in accordance with the Decision of the President of the EPO dated 17 [08:11] schestowitz December 2020). [08:11] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.epo.org | EPO - Coronavirus (COVID-19) - continually updated information [08:11] schestowitz I find the delay a little puzzling. By contrast, the EPO was VERY quick to issue, on the same day as the EBAs order (https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2021/20210716.html), a communication which indicated that given that the pandemic situation in the EPO Contracting States and worldwide still persists, the Office will continue with the conduct of oral proceedings by VICO in accordance with its present practice. [08:11] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.epo.org | EPO - EBoA endorses conduct of oral proceedings by videoconference during pandemic [08:11] schestowitz To be fair, however, the 16 July communication did indicate that, when the EBAs written decision issued, the EPO would carefully analyse the reasoning to assess any potential indirect implications on oral proceedings held by VICO before the EPOs departments of first instance. [08:11] schestowitz Perhaps this means that the EPO is taking its time to fully absorb the implications of the written decision in G 1/21. However, I do not know what is so hard to understand about the EPO needing to have good reasons to use VICO against the wishes of a party to the proceedings. [08:11] schestowitz I would therefore suggest that, if it needs more time to fully digest the EBAs ruling, the EPO should issue a brief communication indicating that the onus is no longer on parties to the proceedings to demonstrate serious reasons AGAINST the use of VICO. This is not least because of the risk that the now outdated Decisions of the President of the EPO could be argued to give rise to legitimate expectations for one party (eg an [08:11] schestowitz opponent keen to use VICOs) that could conflict with the rights of another party (eg a patent proprietor intent upon in-person proceedings) that have now been confirmed by the ruling in G 1/21. [08:11] schestowitz REPLY [08:11] schestowitz Extraneous Attorney [08:11] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 11:57 AM [08:11] schestowitz It is quite fortunate that the Enlarged Board has declined (at least for now) to allow the EPO to force parties to attend oral proceedings via ViCo under any and all circumstances for all time. [08:11] schestowitz Some paragraphs of the reasons even let me think that any provision with this effect would not be upheld under the Enlarged Boards reasoning. Like a certain Article 15a RPBA2020, for instance [08:11] schestowitz REPLY [08:11] schestowitz Concerned observer [08:11] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2021 AT 4:05 PM [08:11] schestowitz Even under their self-imposed narrow remit, the EBA was perfectly capable of finding Art 15a RPBA to be unlawful. Having seen their reasoning, one has to question why they did not do so. [08:11] schestowitz REPLY [08:11] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:11] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 3:59 PM [08:11] schestowitz @ Concerned Observer, [08:11] schestowitz You might have heard what the president published under the new normal. The way it was envisaged initially is that the members of staff can even stay in their country of origin and work remotely. For tax reasons this was not really possible, but the idea of teleworking is still on the table. [08:12] schestowitz When you know that the president intends to reinforce teleworking it becomes immediately clear that OP by ViCo are an absolute necessity and can only become the default setting for the first instance. [08:12] schestowitz EPO is not taking its time to fully absorb the implications of the written decision in G 1/21. I think it rather intends to see how it can overcome the implications of the written decision in G 1/21. [08:12] schestowitz I agree with you that it is not hard to understand that following G 1/21 the EPO is needing to have good reasons to use VICO against the wishes of a party to the proceedings. [08:12] schestowitz Knowing what is in the pipeline in matters of teleworking, it is possible to understand the vehemence with which the presidents representatives acted during the OP in G 1/21 and actually wanted the EBA to decide that mandatory OP by ViCo, that is irrespective of the wishes of the parties, should be the outcome of G 1/21 and become the new standard. [08:12] schestowitz I do not wish to offend anyone, but I might not be wrong in thinking that the with the original composition of the EBA the president might have achieved this goal. [08:12] schestowitz He has certainly not given up this goal, and he will act in all possible ways in order to achieve this goal. [08:12] schestowitz On the other hand it is interesting to note that a Search Pilot for National Offices has been launched. In a first step over 100 examiners in 8 national offices (UK, France, Sweden, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Spain, Denmark and Austria) over an initial period of six months will be trained in search with EPOs modern ANSERA search system. This system is meant to eventually replace the current EPOQUENET system. [08:12] schestowitz https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2021/20211015.html [08:12] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.epo.org | EPO - Launch of Search Pilot for National Offices [08:12] schestowitz The search could thus eventually be given to certain national offices and the EPO be completely virtual. [08:12] schestowitz Whatever the future of the EPO will be in the mind of the present president, in-person OP are a big nuisance which has to be avoided at any costs. [08:12] schestowitz Whether such a configuration is in conformity with the EPC as it stands does not seem to bother the present tenant of the 10th floor. His representatives have claimed loud and clear that the EPC can be amended by secondary legislation during the OP in G 1/21. So it is best to start with mandatory OP by ViCo. [08:12] schestowitz REPLY [08:12] schestowitz MaxDrei [08:12] schestowitz NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AT 10:15 PM [08:12] schestowitz DX Thomas above writes to Dr Bausch that the deciding body ought not to be scattered around. I havent thought about it for more than a moment, but it seems to me that , given the purpose of oral procedings, the attendance of a member of the Board (or Division) at OPs via a video link would be as much a violation of the EBAs concept of oral proceedings as if one of the Parties in dispute were to be appearing by video. [08:12] schestowitz I mean, the communication that is supposed to take place at OPs is not between the Parties but between each of the Parties (in turn) and the members of the tribunal. For the tribunal members not to be there, in person, is to deny the Parties justice, that is to say, a chance to present their case to living, breathing judges, face-to-face. [08:12] schestowitz REPLY [08:12] schestowitz DXThomas [08:12] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2021 AT 3:42 AM [08:12] schestowitz To me Art 15a(3) RPBA20 needs a referral as much as Art 15(1) RPBA. [08:12] schestowitz A lot has been read into the EPC by the present EPO management, like there has never been a right to in-person OP, but should it claim that nowhere is it said that members of the deciding body have to sit together it would go more than a trifle too far. [08:12] schestowitz It was so pretty obvious that the fathers of the EPC would have felt stupid by stating expressis verbis. [08:12] schestowitz In view of the apparent wish to transform the EPC into a huge teleworking institution (by secondary legislation) there are clear mechanisms for this Art 72 and Art 164(1). [08:12] schestowitz Yes to amending the EPC, but not like this. [08:12] schestowitz REPLY [08:12] schestowitz francis hagel [08:12] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2021 AT 8:04 AM [08:12] schestowitz Quoted from the report of the167th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (Munich, 29 and 30 June 2021) : [08:12] schestowitz The Office presented an orientation document Towards a New Normal, outlining how it can adjust to the new normal to continue delivering on its commitment to excellence. The document contains strategic orientations for increasing flexibility, collaboration and a sense of community at the EPO. After a lively debate in which some member states called for a cautious approach, the Council gave a unanimously favourable opinion. The Council also [08:12] schestowitz discussed and noted the Offices approach to revising its medium-term building investment strategy in the light of the new normal. [08:12] schestowitz A lively debate in which some member states called for a cautious approach : doesnt this mean that some member states expressed sharp criticism of the new normal orientation ? [08:12] schestowitz REPLY [08:12] schestowitz Jean Durand [08:12] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2021 AT 12:01 PM [08:12] schestowitz How is it compliant with the recent decision of the French Constitutional Court? [08:12] schestowitz REPLY [08:12] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:12] schestowitz NOVEMBER 4, 2021 AT 8:08 AM [08:12] schestowitz I found in Techrights (which I do not support) a document from the Central Staff Committee about teleworking as envisaged by the president. It is worth reading the document! [08:12] schestowitz http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/EPO-Central-Staf-Committee-sc21127cp.pdf [08:13] schestowitz Full teleworking is envisaged to start on 01.02.2022. [08:13] schestowitz The pilot in opposition was never a pilot which would come to an end should it not be successful. [08:13] schestowitz At the EPO a pilot is a mere information of what will happen irrespective of the outcome of the so-called pilotand simply announces on a small scale what will be generalised in the future. [08:13] schestowitz It is thus very clear that the EPO management will ignore G 1/21 and its possible implications for the first instance. [08:13] schestowitz The draft Circular on teleworking is supposed to be subject to approval by the Member States in the Administrative Council of December. Knowing how the tail is wagging the dog there is no doubt that the AC will approve the circular. [08:13] schestowitz That teleworking as it is envisaged is not in accordance with the EPC appears irrelevant to EPOs management. The presidents representatives insisted heavily during the OP in G 1/21 that the EPC can be amended at will by secondary legislation. In G 3/19 the EBA in a different composition than in G 1/21 paved the way. [08:13] schestowitz It does not bode well should the EBA in the composition of G 3/19 would decide on potential referrals which should come. The question is even whether a BA will accept to refer a question about OP in first instance. [08:13] schestowitz After all the reappointment of members of the BA depends on the performance they show during their appointment. [08:13] schestowitz " [08:13] schestowitz x https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/bill-gates-warns-aid-cuts-after-ps1billion-ukspend [08:13] schestowitz # bill sez [08:13] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.timeshighereducation.com | Bill Gates warns on aid cuts after 1billion UKspend | Times Higher Education (THE) [08:13] schestowitz Still propping up the criminal [08:14] schestowitz x https://www.wired.com/story/more-software-isnt-better-software/ [08:14] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.wired.com | Open Source Doesn't Mean More Software Is Better Software | WIRED [08:14] schestowitz # way to miss the point [08:14] schestowitz = [08:14] schestowitz x https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/5/22765901/microsoft-education-event-date-time [08:14] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.theverge.com | Microsoft is hosting an education-focused event on November 9th - The Verge [08:14] schestowitz # spam [08:14] schestowitz x https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10166787/Bill-Gates-warns-smallpox-terror-attacks-bid-pandemic-prevention-funds.html [08:14] -altlink_b22/#boycottnovell- Cloudflare: dailymail.co.uk | Alternative: https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10166787/Bill-Gates-warns-smallpox-terror-attacks-bid-pandemic-prevention-funds.html [08:14] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.dailymail.co.uk | Bill Gates warns of smallpox terror attacks in bid for pandemic prevention funds | Daily Mail Online [08:14] schestowitz Daily Fail [08:14] schestowitz changing the subject ● Nov 06 [09:12] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [09:29] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:29] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:32] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [09:32] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [10:12] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@fujrd6ajavpue.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [10:45] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:45] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [11:19] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [11:19] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [11:35] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [11:35] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [11:38] *leah has quit (connection closed) [11:38] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [11:48] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [11:49] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [12:00] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [12:00] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [12:17] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [12:17] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [12:52] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [13:36] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [13:37] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [13:40] *schestowitz-TR has quit (connection closed) [13:42] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [13:48] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [13:49] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [14:07] *activelow has quit (connection closed) [14:07] *activelow (~activelow@3vf33k4a9w36w.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [14:11] *activelow has quit (connection closed) [14:11] *activelow (~activelow@4wr2j48cc8cmq.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [14:15] *leah has quit (connection closed) [14:15] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [14:25] *leah has quit (connection closed) [14:26] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [14:40] *activelow has quit (connection closed) [14:41] *activelow (~activelow@khzqmhhh7kmf4.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [15:31] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [15:31] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [15:41] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:42] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [16:36] *sears_hardware has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:39] *sears_hardware (~search_social@akqta89mfqm5k.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [16:41] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:41] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:45] *rianne_ (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [16:46] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [17:37] *activelow has quit (connection closed) [17:38] *activelow (~activelow@b4jjzquhwb7y2.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [18:17] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@geufhbnmd9gbq.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [18:36] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 06 [19:47] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@ppnzd78r6xqv6.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [19:54] *leah has quit (connection closed) [19:54] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [20:39] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [20:58] *leah has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:58] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [22:15] *wallacer has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:16] *wallacer (~quassel@6bsu33ajs4zs4.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Nov 06 [23:38] *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [23:54] *leah has quit (connection closed) [23:54] *leah (~leah@wrh2nipuzrd3y.irc) has joined #boycottnovell