Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | <li> | Oct 13 09:18 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://fossbytes.com/deb-goodkin-executive-director-freebsd-foundation-interview/">20 Years of The FreeBSD Foundation: Interview With Deb Goodkin, Executive Director</a></h5> | Oct 13 09:18 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Oct 13 09:18 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-fossbytes.com | 20 Best Free Image Download Sites | Get Stock Photos For Blogs In 2018 - Fossbytes | Oct 13 09:18 | |
| schestowitz | <p>We’ve been impacted in many ways. The glaring area is in funding. We’re not receiving the corporate funding we normally receive. But, fortunately, we have a good investment strategy and our investments haven’t been affected by the downturn in the markets. </p> | Oct 13 09:18 |
| schestowitz | <p> Those investments are considered our reserve fund. We’ll be utilizing those this year, so we can continue supporting FreeBSD at the same level we have been for years. We’re also not going to in-person conferences now, so we’re missing that face-to-face communication we get with our constituents, as well as, introducing people to FreeBSD. </p> | Oct 13 09:18 |
| schestowitz | <p> However, with all of the conferences going virtual, we’ve had increased opportunities to participate in more conferences and events. This has allowed us to reach people who normally can’t travel to conferences. </p></blockquote></li> | Oct 13 09:18 |
| schestowitz | "No 'other' links from 2020-10-12 due to low news traffic." | Oct 13 10:24 |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Oct 13 12:53 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Oct 13 12:54 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Oct 13 13:08 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Oct 13 13:08 | |
| *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) | Oct 13 13:10 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Oct 13 13:11 | |
| schestowitz | x https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/520640-microsoft-disrupts-international-botnet-group-ahead-of-election-day | Oct 13 14:08 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-thehill.com | Microsoft disrupts international botnet group ahead of Election Day | TheHill | Oct 13 14:08 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/10/09/german-draft-upc-ratification-bill-in-parliament-chance-of-new-constitutional-challenges/#comments | Oct 13 14:17 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | German draft UPC ratification bill in parliament, chance of new constitutional challenges - Kluwer Patent Blog | Oct 13 14:17 | |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | There is a real and material opportunity that Germany would sack the ratification, so Europe can finally get a proper patent court as envisaged by the Eurpean Treaties. The Unitary Patent Court was ruined by the British, without recourse to the EUCJ. It makes no sense to ride this dead horse to ratification, a Court that one days should be established in London, while the Brexit-UK in their hatered against anything European | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | abandonned participation. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | Europe deserves a proper community patent and a proper community patent court and an EU patent office. For a community patent a simple directive or regulation would suffice, no need to wait ten years for ratification of a badly designed court and its training platforms for non-judge-judges without eligibility to a office of a judge and the strange construction of bribes to the existing institutions. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | FFII and its President threaten to submit constitutional complaints from time to time, see 2017: | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/874332456224161792 | Oct 13 14:17 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: FFII will submit another constitutional complaint in Germany againt the Unitary Patent, still looking for deadlines #upc #germany | Oct 13 14:17 | |
| schestowitz | Nothing to really worry about. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | You would think that, by now, politicians would be sophisticated enough to assess sceptically what the professional lobbyists are telling them, especially when it is over an issue where financial self-interest plays such a dominant role. Was it not in Ancient Rome that the maxim Cui Bono was the first enquiry to be made? These days , what we should do is to “Follow the Money”. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | Pushing for the UPC is a relatively small number of well-funded itinerant and international players who are adept in the use of lobbying power. On the other side is a much larger circle of small and medium-sized European users of the patent system, users for whom lobbying in Brussels or Berlin is as alien as Life on Mars. The fact that the petition to the BGH was NOT put together by a powerful player, and that Brussels and Berlin | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | have no feeling of being harangued by opponents of the UPC, does NOT mean that the arguments are all in favour of the UPC, nor that the UPC (as presently constituted) is a good thing for society, the economy, innovation and the general welfare. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | UK government minister Michael Gove notoriously averred (in the context of the BREXIT Referendum) that the people think they have by now heard quite enough, thank you, from experts. I hope that politicians and their senior civil servants in Berlin and Brussels still want to hear from the experts, on the question whether the UPC will do, in reality, what its proponents are boasting it will do. In my opinion, as a European patent | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | attorney with clients in Europe, Asia and North America, it won’t. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | I can only but agree with Max Drei! Ratifying the UPCA in its present state is a receipt for disaster. But as Max Drei says, follow the money. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The UK has only sent a “Note Verbale” to the Commission. I am not acquainted with international constitutional law, but I would not consider that it is a proper withdrawal under the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The UPCA has not even provisionally entered into force in order to allow Art 25(2) VCLT to be applied. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The vague statement of the UPC Preparatory Committee about the reallocation of the duties foreseen for the London Section of the Central Division has, in my humble opinion, no standing with respect to the VCLT. It is certainly not a common declaration off all contracting states under Art 33(1) VCLT. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | Starting the UPC without having amended Art 7(2) UPCA and the annex which is part of the UPCA defining the classes to be dealt with in London is putting the head in the sand and ignoring reality. Banking on Art 87 UPCA to amend Art 7(2) UPCA after its entry into force is defying any common and legal sense. I take bets that Italy which is poised to take over the duties of the London Section will not allow this to happen. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | Any party seeking help from a judicial system should be heard by the legal judge foreseen. As there will be no legal judge in London, this condition is not fulfilled. This could be a problem for the FCC if a new complaint is filed. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The UPC is bad for European SMEs, see the article of Mr 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 (March 2020), S. 51-68. As most of the patents granted by the EPO are held by non-EU member states, where is the interest for EU industry to launch the UPC? It is giving those non-EU member states a single entry point to | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | challenge European Industry. I do not see this as being beneficial. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The UPCA is pushed by the big industry and their lawyers. The latter expect to get a lot of money. Both are intensely lobbying in favour of the UPCA. European SMEs are the fig leave behind which the lobbyists are hiding. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | Further to the problem of the legal judge, there is still the problem of the primacy of EU law raised on its own volition by the FCC. The FCC has dismissed the problem of the designation or removal of a judge, but this is not correct. How can a court be trusted if a judge can be removed from its duties without offering him any means of redress? | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The RoP of the UPC reach very far into the legal systems of the Contracting States, but have never been checked, not even by the Commission! | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | It interesting to note that one of the greatest lobbyists for the UPC, Mr Tilmann has published in GRUR Int. 2020, 847 an interesting article on “The UPC without the UK: Consequences and Alternatives”. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | In Part II of his article Mr Tilmann claims that UK was a difficult partner from the start, which can even be held responsible for the fact that all the efforts for creating a “Community Patent” were torpedoed by the UK. He also considers that UK will lose out, but this is an acquired fact. But where is the attractivity of the UPC without the UK? | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | The UPCA as not being common to all EU member states will simply add another layer of case law, but for what is this good? This case law can even be in contradiction with the case law of the boards of appeal of the EPO, and especially its enlarged board of appeal. On the other hand with the “dynamic interpretation” started in G 3/19, this problem could be resolved, but then, what about legal certainty? | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | In Part III of his article, Mr Tilmann mentions “Alternatives to continuing?” and especially the “Incorporation into the CJEU court system” of a litigation system, but in order to immediately dismiss it in favour of the UPC. The reasons for the dismissal are the following: | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | “Opposition to this centralistic structure was voiced from all sides at the time. The proposal was unanimously rejected by industry, lawyers and judges, not only but mainly because of the rigorous centralisation excluding local and regional divisions in EU Member States. Europe’s big competitors, the US and China, have decentralised first instance courts for patent cases”. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | This is not a convincing reason at all. If subsidiarity is to be reached, this is attained by the present legal system as the number of truly supranational litigations is very low. This is comforted by the fact that the average number of validations in EU member states is at best between 5 and 7. Why do we need a system for 20+ states? It would be much more efficient to have increased meetings of judges dealing with European patents | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | in the member states of the EPC. | Oct 13 14:17 |
| schestowitz | I claim that the common EU IP court was primarily rejected by lawyers as it would certainly not be tailored to their financial needs and their influence on the rules of proceedings would be greatly reduced, contrary to what happened for the UPC. Moreover such a court with judgements valid in all EU member states would require unanimity which cannot be reached at this level as some EU members states have either not signed (Spain) or | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | will not ratify (Poland and the Czech Republic) as it is bad for their industry. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | There is a way different of the “reinforced cooperation”, which would avoid another layer of case law not valid for all EU member states, but this way would not be to the liking of the UPC lobbyists. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Let’s pick up on what Andre writes. Now that the British are gone, is that an opportunity to craft a better UPC? | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | The EPC is the world’s best law of patent validity precisely because it was a fusion (in 1973) of all the best in the two rival systems of Law in the world, civil law and English common law. In following the Rule of Law, Europe is a beacon of light for the rest of the world. If Europe is fit for the future, it ought to be able to create an EU-wide system of patent dispute adjudication that is an example to the world. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Let’s face it, for validity, there is nothing better imaginable than what we have already at the EPO. But the proponents of the UPC, the big international law firms, don’t like it because their share of that particular “cake” is far too small for their liking. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Compared with the enquiry into validity, that into infringement is far less time-consuming (and so less attractive to the proponents). However, if the pols in Brussels and Berlin and Paris and The Hague truly want a functional patent dispute system for the EU, let them set up local infringement courts and let everything go up eventually to the CJEU. One would hope though, that the CJEU would hold itself back from wrecking the | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | established (and enormously persuasive) jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | What does the Republic of Ireland think? After all, its courts run under English law and Ireland is full of American companies. Does Ireland want a UPC even after the departure of the UK? Should we ask it? | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/10/09/german-draft-upc-ratification-bill-in-parliament-chance-of-new-constitutional-challenges/#comments | Oct 13 14:18 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | German draft UPC ratification bill in parliament, chance of new constitutional challenges - Kluwer Patent Blog | Oct 13 14:18 | |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Anyone who has seen the CJEU’s efforts in the field of Supplementary Protection Certificates will surely be horrified at the prospect of that court having anything to say about patent validity. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | The CJEU has time and time again shown itself incapable of understanding the most basic aspects of how patents are drafted, how patent claims function, and how they should be construed. This leads to a tendency to come up with absurd and impenetrable tests which leave seasoned patent practitioners scratching their heads. Every successive attempt at clarification results only in more confusion. Robin Jacob put it well when he said, | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | in light of case C-493/12 (Eli Lilly v HGS): | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | “The SPC reference deluge continues and the Court decisions become less and less intelligible. What, for instance, is a national court (or patent office) to make of the latest test emerging from the CJEU, namely whether the claims relate ‘implicitly but necessarily and specifically to the active ingredient in question’? This is close to gibberish. Patent claims are there to define a monopoly. A product is either within the | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | claim or not. Claims do not ‘relate’ to products That is not their purpose or function.” | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | More recently we have seen (e.g. in the Teva decision) the CJEU struggling to understand the distinction between “common general knowledge” and “prior art”, and making cryptic statements which employ terminology “derived from patent law, but not in accordance with its meaning in that field” (to quote Arnold J) such as requiring that the skilled person must understand that a particular product “is a specification | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | required for the solution of the technical problem”. What on earth does this mean? | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | In the absence of a specialist patent chamber of the CJEU with apropriately-experienced judges, the SPC case law demonstrates that we should be very wary indeed of handing the CJEU an opportunity to upset the clear and thoughtful body of case-law which has been developed by the EPO concerning patent validity. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Well said, IBNAS. Your comment reminds me of the assessments made by patent lawyers, of the well-meaning but disastrous efforts of the Supreme Court of the USA in recent years, when asked to opine on any aspect of patent validity. Supreme Court judges usually make a hash of the law of patent validity. In doing so, they achieve exactly the opposite of their role in any properly functioning legal system, namely to bring to the law a | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | clarity and simplicity that has been gradually lost amongst the decisions of the lower courts | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | The gift of the authoritative and hugely respected established case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO is a historical accident. No other Patent Office in the world is free from the catastrophic effects of national Supreme Court Binding Precedent on it. This is NOT a coincidence but the very reason for the clarity of the EPO’s case law on patent validity. Brussels, Berlin, please, do not destroy the greatest jewel in the | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | world’s collection of patent law. Do not let yourselves be bamboozled by silver-tongued lobbyists of the world’s largest corporations. Remember that a trans-national corporation is obliged, by law, to care for nothing except the interests of its shareholders. It is therefore, by law, intrinsically a psychopathic entity. Representatives of the people are there to represent the ordinary citizen, not the itinerant psychopathic | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | legal persons of this world. just remember that, when being wined, dined (and even head-hunted) by all those lobbyists. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | But what are the alternatives to trying to get a (nearly) EU-wide patent in view of all the failed attempts in the past. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | In an article I wrote and which was published in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, https://bit.ly/3nJVx4I, I suggested in the last footnote: | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | [The article was largely descriptive and, in hindsight, way too lenient on the shortcomings of the Unitary Patents & Unified Patent Court] | Oct 13 14:18 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.jptos.org | Unitary Patents & Unified Patent Court: The Start of a new Epoch in the European Patent System? | Oct 13 14:18 | |
| schestowitz | ————- | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Failure to enact would be regrettable especially in view how tantalizing close enactment is or was, only a signature was required for Germany’s ratification and consequent enactment; yet, seemingly within a blink of an eye, the ratification process stumbled in its tracks just short of the finishing line. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | This raises the question what could be “rescued” from the “patent package” in case there will be no enactment. The author suggests to consider a (i) EU “Patent Right” Regulation exclusively governing the rights (including any exceptions or limits to those rights) conferred by (a) publication of a patent application, and (b) by grant of a patent; and (ii) to bifurcate infringement and revocation, and to move revocation to | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | a newly established revocation court or revocation department at the EPO. Any future (appeal only?) “Patent Court” could then be considerably simpler institutionally, and perhaps be made an integral part of the EU judiciary. | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:18 |
| schestowitz | Dear MN, | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It is interesting to follow you thoughts. I have proposed a while ago on this blog something similar with bifurcation between infringement and validity. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | I would go one step further and not create a revocation department at the EPO. It would just be necessary not to limit the time for opposition to 9 months after grant, but to allow opposition for the whole life of the patent. After all the proprietor is allowed to request limitation or revocation for the whole life of its patent. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | What has to be avoided at any cost is to have a clash of case law between the UPC and the Boards of Appeal of the EPO in matters of validity. This is point which has been carefully ignored but cannot be denied. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Whether you call it revocation/validity or opposition procedure is actually irrelevant. Should such an idea become reality it would mean that the Boards of Appeal of the EPO should be made really independent and not just the perception of their independence increased. It would mean that the Boards of Appeal do not stay merely as a unit of the EPO but become a separate entity as the German Patent Court became independent from the | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | German Patent Office. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Rather than to come up with something like the UPC exclusively serving the interests of the big industry and of international law firms at their service, this would be a true progress for European integration, even going well over the EU boundaries. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It is clear that lawyers would not be happy with such a situation as it would still leave qualified patent representatives having a big finger in the pie. That is why lawyers are so keen to set up the UPC. Even if Max Drei disagrees, I maintain that the UPC is the revenge of the lawyers over qualified representatives before the EPO. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | After all, patents are technical items clad in a legal framework. You neither can ignore the technical nor the legal side, but without a good scientific background you will be lost with technique. Before courts we end then with experts battling against each other. It not only costs money but it can have deleterious effects as explained by IBNAS. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Attentive, I do not disagree with you. Rather, I agree with you wholeheartedly. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | The reason why the saying “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” is so powerful is because it’s true. We in the patents community have been digesting the pudding cooked up by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO these past 40 years, and very few people have got any legitimate criticism of it. Supreme Courts praise it. Robin Jacob (so critical of the CJEU) praises it. Such exceptions as there are, as Attentive points out, are | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | those who are not getting what they feel to be their share of the sauce, namely the big international law firms. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It would be nice if somebody could put together for Brussels and Berlin a summation of what national Supreme Courts have said in recent years about the established case law of the EPO. A contrast with the Dog’s Dinner of case law on patents, designs and trademarks cooked up by the CJEU would give open-mined politicians much food for thought. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Even back in 1973, when the EPC was being written, it contained a provision for national courts to lay off to the EPO the task of assessing patent validity, in ongoing patent litigation in the national courts of EPC Member States. So, as Attentive suggests, the EPC Member States should i) extend the EPC opposition period to cover the life of the patent, but also ii) ease the EPO Boards of Appeal out from under the thumb of the EPO | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | President. That would, at a stroke, solve all the problems perceived by Brussels. It might even increase the flow of dividend pay-outs that the EPO President can divide up amongst the EPC Member States. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | And if those international law firms concentrate, going forward from here, they can compete with the patent law boutique firms, and win for themselves a full boat of the sauce in the European patent validity litigation pot.. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Everybody wins. What’s not to like? | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | "I agree with Andre that Europe deserves a proper EU patent and a proper EU patent court and an EU patent office with the CJEU as the highest court, just as for all other matters of EU law. Moreover, any criticism of the CJEU by British judges in the past is now obsolete as our English friends have left the EU. It is doesn’t matter at all what they think of the CJEU or the CJEU case law e.g. about SPC’s. I look forward to being | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | impressed by the future UK case law about patents more or less in the same way as it can be interesting to read about Chinese court cases." | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | @MaxDrei | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | “What does the Republic of Ireland think? After all, its courts run under English law and Ireland is full of American companies. Does Ireland want a UPC even after the departure of the UK? Should we ask it?” | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | I say old chap aren’t you improperly conflating “English law” with “common law” ? | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Do Scottish courts run under “English law” – try that one in Edinburgh some time and you’ll see how far you get with it … | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | How about the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand … (I could go on) … ? | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | And as for “should we ask it?”, I’m afraid you will have to. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Under IRISH law, ratification of the UPC by Ireland will require a referendum, not a couple of parliamentarians in a non-quorate early morning rubber-stamping session … | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | And you jolly old Brits know what fun referenda can be … | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | "Sir Jonah, I salute you and your observations. Quite right, that I was using “English law” as shorthand for that system of law (“common law and equity" | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Sir Jonah, I salute you and your observations. Quite right, that I was using “English law” as shorthand for that system of law (“common law and equity”” if you like, invented centuries ago in England and still today the basis of the law of many sovereign jurisdictions, all around the world Not sure how “improper” I was or how much “conflating” I was doing though. After all, my comment is not at the level of a PhD | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | thesis. It was intended to be provocative. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | How interesting, that the Republic of Ireland will not be able to ratify the UPC until its electorate has, with a Referendum, given its blessing. As you say, Referenda can be a lot of fun, even with such basic questions as EU: Y/N. Quite how the electorate is supposed to make a useful and informed decision on the question UPC: Y/N is quite beyond my powers of imagination. | Oct 13 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Representative democracy seems to be, these days, such a delicate flower. One observes the USA with great apprehension. The Parliamentarians (Germany) make a mess of their (UPC) vote and the electors (UK) make a mess of their (EU Referendum) vote. Who is competent to decide? Is “representative” democracy in the age of social media an oxymoron? I begin to think it might be. | Oct 13 14:20 |
| schestowitz | " | Oct 13 14:20 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/dennydugg/status/1315900964239441921 | Oct 13 14:46 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@dennydugg: @schestowitz Interesting right? When someone uses their freedom to choose only to then choose to be a slave. | Oct 13 14:46 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/MorinvillePaul/status/1315854062148083712 | Oct 13 14:47 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@MorinvillePaul: @schestowitz Nobody died from this. You are flooding your feed with hyperbole and discrediting yourself. | Oct 13 14:47 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/BrideOfLinux/status/1315846992120229889 | Oct 13 14:47 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@BrideOfLinux: @schestowitz It would be easier for the same thing, or something more drastic, to happen without a code of conduct. | Oct 13 14:47 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/taustation/status/1315741049021779968 | Oct 13 14:48 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@taustation: @schestowitz Join us an support us! The code is as beautiful as the gameplay :-) | Oct 13 14:48 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/LindaO888/status/1315695682771132416 | Oct 13 14:48 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@LindaO888: @schestowitz The Democrats are the War Party. | Oct 13 14:48 | |
| schestowitz | >> first 15 seconds of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ9fXuR6g_Y | Oct 13 16:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.youtube.com | The IBM Master the Mainframe World Championship - YouTube | Oct 13 16:24 | |
| schestowitz | >> | Oct 13 16:24 |
| schestowitz | > It doesn't make any sense. Do you want just the lead-in? Or how much | Oct 13 16:24 |
| schestowitz | > of her intro do you also want to include or exclude? | Oct 13 16:24 |
| schestowitz | It's the word "master" we need | Oct 13 16:24 |
| schestowitz | Re: Maconn | Oct 13 16:25 |
| schestowitz | > He‘ll take a job with whatever law firm and then I guess QCOM will be a client | Oct 13 16:25 |
| schestowitz | > | Oct 13 16:25 |
| *asusbox2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Oct 13 19:09 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Oct 13 19:09 | |
| *asusbox2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Oct 13 21:50 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-174-45.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Oct 13 21:50 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!