●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Friday, March 12, 2021 ●● ● Mar 12 [01:27] *rianne_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [01:27] *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [01:28] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [01:28] *liberty_box_ (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [02:10] *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) [02:10] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) [02:56] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [02:56] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [04:44] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [04:44] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) [04:47] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [04:47] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [05:52] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [05:53] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [05:56] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [05:57] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [07:18] Techrights-sec academia [07:18] Techrights-sec It's all marketing: throw money at a person or project, prevent them [07:18] Techrights-sec from working with FOSS, and then without contributing otherwise, [07:18] Techrights-sec tack a "and M$ Research" onto the authors' list. [07:18] Techrights-sec I consider it in the same category as EDGI [07:18] Techrights-sec as for research they are on par with Muppet Labs [07:18] schestowitz I have successfully de-escalated this [07:31] Techrights-sec excellent [07:31] Techrights-sec veryt important [07:43] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) [07:43] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) ● Mar 12 [08:09] schestowitz diplomacy (with employer, hosts etc.) has long helped us survive and thrive in the face of attacks. All this happened just about the same time I was warned out upcoming series (GDPR abuses etc.) would cause massive pushbash. [08:09] schestowitz *our [08:22] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:22] schestowitz MARCH 5, 2021 AT 6:36 PM [08:22] schestowitz Dear Thorsten, [08:22] schestowitz I would not say that we have the salad. On the one hand, we now have the assurance that the UPC complaints will not be dealt with in 2021. On the other hand we have a kind of salad, but this is nothing new since UK withdrew from the UPC. It was clear that with Art 7(2) as it stands, UPC could not enter into force. And all the proponents of the UPC knew it damn well, but they simply did not want to face reality. [08:22] schestowitz Looking at the way the second ratification bill was presented to the Parliament, MPs could not do anything else but ratify. I would not call the list of cases to be dealt with by the FCC a liars list, but rather the explanatory statement annexed to the second ratification bill. But we all know who held the pen of the writers of this document in the ministry of justice. [08:22] schestowitz When the second ratification was decided, I said that the proponents of the UPC might have won a battle, but certainly not the war. Shortly after it became known that there were two new complaints filed, all the proponents of the UPC were heralding that like for the first case, dismissal of the complaints is on the doorstep. It was a matter of 6 months at best. Now we know it is not a matter of 6 months, but probably much much more. [08:22] schestowitz I have even heard one of them saying that the President of the German Republic should have some (decency forbids saying more) and simply ignore the FCC so that the UPC can start as soon as possible. The complainants should not be allowed to hold up such a project which was in the interests of the whole EU (sic)! [08:22] schestowitz I am wondering if the FCC does not simply play time. It is clear that the longer it will take to ratify, the less chances the UPC will have to ever open. If the interest for the UPC has died, what does help flogging a dead horse? The FCC could save itself a lot of work. [08:22] schestowitz The private interests of the UPC proponents, especially of the big law firms, will never die but the perspective of the big buck is becoming a kind of fata morgana. [08:22] schestowitz The situation is not as bad as in a famous fable of La Fontaine. The milk has not been all poured out of the pot. I would rather say the milk is curdling day by day. But the end result will be the same. [08:22] schestowitz As far as the question of the independence of the BA is concerned I hope that the FCC will force the BA to become truly independent from the head of the EPO. The BA are only independent by delegation of power from the latter. I do not call this independence or even the perception of independence. If one needed confirmation of the lack of independence of the BA, just look at G 3/19 and Art 15aRPBA2020. [08:22] schestowitz What is dearly missing is a revision instance for the BA. It is there for procedural matters, but not for substantive matters. And it is needed. The BA check whether the discretion of the first instance divisions has been properly exercised. Which body checks the exercise of discretion of the BA? In view of its case law it will certainly not be the EBA acting under Art 112aEPC. And yet with the RPBA2020 the discretion of the BA has [08:22] schestowitz tremendously increased. [08:22] schestowitz When one also sees that the BA can decide ex-officio, without the slightest proof, what belongs to common general knowledge, this is also going a trifle too far. See T 1090/12 in examination and T 1370/15 in opposition. [08:22] schestowitz Anonymous [08:22] schestowitz MARCH 6, 2021 AT 3:19 PM [08:22] schestowitz Attentive Observer: If one needed confirmation of the lack of independence of the BA, just look at G 3/19 and Art 15aRPBA2020 [08:22] schestowitz Just look at what the Enlarged Board itself said in G 2301/16, point 43 of the Reasons: [08:22] schestowitz As the Petitioner [the Administrative Council of the EPO] did not clearly distance itself from the Office Presidents position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Boards judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied. [08:22] schestowitz Wonder how the FCC could endorse such situation. [08:22] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:22] schestowitz MARCH 8, 2021 AT 12:32 PM [08:22] schestowitz Dear Anonymous, [08:22] schestowitz I fully agree with you that in G 2301/16 the EBA resisted the pressure of the office management. [08:23] schestowitz Did you compare the composition of the EBA in G 2301/16 and in G 3/19? [08:23] schestowitz The only one which is left from G 2301/16 is the rapporteur in G 3/19. [08:23] schestowitz In view of G 2301/16, I would have expected a different result in G 3/19. [08:23] schestowitz How many people banked on the admissibility of G 3/19? [08:23] schestowitz The surprise was great when the decision introducing a dynamic interpretation of its own case law by the EBA was issued. [08:23] schestowitz The conclusion of many people was that in G 3/19 the EBA did not resist the pressure of the office management. [08:23] schestowitz And this is not something to be pleased about. [08:23] schestowitz I also wonder how the FCC will see the situation created by the introduction of R 12a-d after all the events leading to the quasi dismissal of a member of the BA by the president of the office. The fact that reappointment is submitted to a performance review like in DG1 is certainly not conducive to increase their independence. [08:23] schestowitz The FCC has also decided that judges can be appointed for a given period, but under quite strict conditions: they are employed for life and cannot be reappointed. [08:23] schestowitz Not even the perception of the independence of the BA has been increased. In spite of what has been said, their independence is not existing as all the powers given to the president of the BA is by delegation of the president. [08:23] schestowitz Concerned observer [08:23] schestowitz MARCH 8, 2021 AT 12:51 PM [08:23] schestowitz G 2301/16 says the quiet part out loud, namely that the Boards are perfectly well aware that they risk provoking negative consequences (for them) by issuing decisions that contradict the strongly expressed wishes of the President / AC. [08:23] schestowitz Given the awareness of the Boards on this point, how can one possibly have confidence that the decisions of the Boards of Appeal (or the Enlarged Board) in highly political cases are untainted by partiality? [08:23] schestowitz Since G 2301/16, the EBAs decisions in controversial / political cases, such as G 2/19 and G 3/19, have used highly suspect (and, frankly, outright illogical) reasoning to arrive at conclusions that just so happen to give the President and the AC (almost) exactly what they might have wished for. In the light of this evidence, one might reasonably conclude that, given the circumstances under which its members operate, [08:23] schestowitz objective observers will ALWAYS have an objectively justified fear of partiality in respect of EBA decisions in political cases. [08:23] schestowitz The unfortunate crafting of the rules governing the organs of the EPO means that weaknesses with regard to the independence of the Boards have always been lurking in the background. Indeed, there was a push in the early 2000s to address those weaknesses. It is no small tragedy that the proposed reforms were abandoned ironically, because of the perceived proximity of legislative changes necessary to usher in a new era of unitary [08:23] schestowitz patents. [08:23] schestowitz The latest developments in Germany illustrate that waiting for unitary patents is like waiting for Godot. Continuing to delay MEANINGFUL reform of the Boards can therefore no longer be justified, regardless of whether or not one believes that Godot will eventually arrive. The decisions in G 2301/16, G 2/19 and G 3/19 illustrate that the situation is already desperate. It is hard to imagine how just bad it might get if the FCC were [08:23] schestowitz to give the EPO President and the AC a free pass to carry on in the same vein. [08:23] schestowitz Patent robot [08:23] schestowitz MARCH 8, 2021 AT 2:35 PM [08:23] schestowitz Things might even get worse with G 4/19 [08:23] schestowitz Since I am not German, could someone please explain how the EPO falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC? Thank you! [08:23] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:23] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 9:45 AM [08:23] schestowitz A further referral in which the independence of the EBA will be tested is G 1/21, when it will actually have been filed by Board 3.5.02. [08:23] schestowitz I would not be surprised if in the meantime this board has come under high pressure by the management of the boards and of the office. [08:23] schestowitz The issues raised are of high political relevance, as the whole mandatory character of OP in form of ViCo could be set aside. [08:23] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:23] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 10:17 AM [08:23] schestowitz Just seen on LinkedIn published by Preston RICHARD [08:23] schestowitz The Opponent has withdrawn their request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeals on the validity of Oral Proceeding by Video Conference. [08:23] schestowitz https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5YSDU5C0178DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false [08:23] schestowitz Bad news. [08:23] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-register.epo.org | European Patent Register [08:23] schestowitz But epi took position on the topic [08:23] schestowitz https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5YD2NJP6561DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false [08:23] schestowitz The question of the legality of mandatory OP in form of ViCo is however still actual! [08:23] schestowitz Concerned observer [08:23] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 12:05 PM [08:24] schestowitz Interesting. However, it is unclear whether the request(s) for in-person proceedings have been withdrawn and so an opinion from the EBA may still be required to resolve the case. We shall have to wait and see. [08:24] schestowitz Attentive Observer [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 3:09 PM [08:24] schestowitz In any case, the request was filed after closure of the debate. Unless the board decides to reopen, there will be a referral. [08:24] schestowitz It seems that the proprietor had the same request, so that in absence of withdrawal of the proprietors request, the referral should be on its way. [08:24] schestowitz Anonymous [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 4:09 PM [08:24] schestowitz Have the two complaints been declared admissible by the FCC? [08:24] schestowitz Patent robot [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 6:10 PM [08:24] schestowitz Sorry to insist, but soon the comments will be closed: [08:24] schestowitz Since I am not German, could someone please explain how the EPO falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC? Thank you! [08:24] schestowitz Anon Y. Mouse [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 7:27 PM [08:24] schestowitz In my understanding, it is not the EPO as such which falls under the jurisdiction of the court, but rather Germanys position as a contracting state to the EPC. If the institutional structures of the EPOrg are not in line with the standards of the German constitution, then Germany cannot participate in a constitutionally valid way. [08:24] schestowitz [Disclaimer: I am not German either] [08:24] schestowitz Patent Human [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 9, 2021 AT 8:47 PM [08:24] schestowitz The EPO does not fall under the jurisdiction of the BVG. However, Germanys accession to the EPC does fall under its jurisdiction. Would the BVG consider that the membership of Germany violates the German Constitution, it could oblige Germany to amend the treaty or step out of it. Germany being the biggest European filer and by far the biggest Umsatzmarkt, that would be a huge blow to the EPO and would certainly require a [08:24] schestowitz Diplomatic Conference and amendment of the EPC. [08:24] schestowitz Patent robot [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 10, 2021 AT 10:20 AM [08:24] schestowitz Thank you for your comments. [08:24] schestowitz So if there were issues with the FCC decision(s), the only solution would be Art. 172 EPC, wouldnt it? [08:24] schestowitz However, what about the decisions taken by the BoA since 1979? [08:24] schestowitz Anon Y. Mouse [08:24] schestowitz MARCH 10, 2021 AT 11:48 AM [08:24] schestowitz My [non-expert] view is that the BoA decisions would surely stand (they were taken under the provisions of the EPC, not under German law). [08:24] schestowitz However, perhaps someone can tell us whether any parties adversely affected by such decisions could claim damages against the German government. For example, if a patent-holders rights in Germany were destroyed by revocation of a patent at the EPO, does non-compliance of the EPC (and therefore the revocation procedure at the EPO) with the German Basic Law mean that the revocation of the German part of the patent is [08:24] schestowitz unconstitutional? And so that the patentee has a claim for damages against the German government arising from the unconstitutional removal of their rights? [08:24] schestowitz Of course, such rights in the (German part of the European) patent would also not have existed in Germany in the first place without Germany being party to that same illegal convention can this be disentangled? [08:24] schestowitz Another blogpost is surely needed to explore these matters. [08:24] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/03/05/german-upca-ratification-now-we-have-the-salad/ [08:24] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | German UPCA Ratification - Now We Have The Salad - Kluwer Patent Blog [08:57] *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell [08:57] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [09:21] schestowitz http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-110321.html#tMar%2011%2008:42:48 [09:21] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Thursday, March 11, 2021 [09:21] schestowitz # +1 [09:21] schestowitz # far fewer resources would be a required by a static site generator ● Mar 12 [12:54] schestowitz quite so far today in IRC, which is how I prefer it [12:54] schestowitz *quiet [12:55] Techrights-sec On Jekyll (or other static site generator) instead of WordPress, [12:55] Techrights-sec TR could probably be run from a geographically distributed cluster [12:55] Techrights-sec of SBCs [12:55] Techrights-sec Quiet is good. [12:56] schestowitz a lot more productive today, also at work (shift) [12:57] Techrights-sec don't skimp on the exercise though [12:58] schestowitz did a workout 2 hours ago. I need to compensate for sleep deficit, but weekend is coming,... [12:59] Techrights-sec excellent ● Mar 12 [16:28] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [16:41] *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell ● Mar 12 [18:09] Techrights-sec just did a backup [18:09] schestowitz I did the DBs yesterday (offsite), but it's quiet today so I hope it's just a temperamental issue (health condition) [18:25] Techrights-sec Hopefully it will improve soon. Usually that is a muscle issue. [18:25] schestowitz I think I was misunderstood. Not about me.. [18:26] Techrights-sec Muscles are in pairs and if one pair gets stronger then there is trouble. [18:26] Techrights-sec Oh. I'm not sure of the context then. [18:26] schestowitz emotional imbalance, clinical [18:27] Techrights-sec I guess I'll see in tomorrow's IRC. [18:27] Techrights-sec Ah. That's been known for ages but is hard to talk about the last few decades. [18:27] schestowitz COVID is worsening things, esp. for extroverts [18:49] schestowitz ' [18:49] schestowitz Challenging the salary adjustment procedure 2020: Request for review -> DEADLINE 16 MARCH [18:49] schestowitz Dear colleagues, [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz During the General Assemblies and Floor Meetings end of 2020, the staff representation informed you that the trade union SUEPO would prepare litigation against the salary adjustment procedure of 2020 which caused a loss of purchasing power for all EPO active staff and pensioners. [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz SUEPO has now provided its members with a template and instructions, and has also decided to make them available to the staff committees for distribution to all staff. [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz In order to safeguard your rights, you need to file a request for review (RfR) before 16 March 2021 as follows: [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz Fill in the first page and the last page of the RfR Word Template with your personal data and your signature, [18:49] schestowitz Convert the filled in RfR to a PDF, [18:49] schestowitz Retrieve your salary slip of January 2021 from MyFips (MyFips -> Salaries and Allowances -> Salary slip) or your pension statement of January 2021 [18:49] schestowitz Send your filled in RfR PDF together with your salary slip or pension statement by email (with request for acknowledgment of receipt) to managementreview@epo.org and copy to sap2020@suepo.org [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz Please keep a copy of the email you sent and of the PDFs in your paper archives and electronic archives. These documents will be necessary later for filing an internal appeal and for filing a complaint in front of ILOAT. [18:49] schestowitz [18:49] schestowitz A decision from the President is then due two months after filing the request for review. In case of a rejection decision, you will then have three months to file an internal appeal. For this next stage of the procedure, SUEPO has already informed us that SUEPO will provide further legal support to its members only. [18:50] schestowitz [18:50] schestowitz Sincerely yours, [18:50] schestowitz [18:50] schestowitz The Central Staff Committee [18:50] schestowitz "