Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | >>> Come to think of it, no need to do any mysql/sql either, you could just | Jun 16 00:00 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | >>> uncompress the wordpress dump and work on it as though it was a text | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >>> file. But then, however, post REVISION might lead to duplicates and you | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >>> don't only look at Daily Links, either. | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> What kind of redundancies would be produced by this query? | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> select post_title, post_content | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> from wp_posts | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> where post_title regexp '^Links [0-9]+/[0-9]+/[0-9]+:'; | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jun 16 00:00 |
| schestowitz | >> I think that gets us rather close. From there, however, HTML parsing is | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | >> required. | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | > See the first pass: | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | > ~links/Links/Study-2020-Q2/01-dates.tab | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | I think there may be risk of dupes because of unpublished revisions. I'll take a look later. I think it's safer to slice the tables based on category rather than headline. | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | If you have a GUI installed locally for mysql and can load in the DB, it might be easier to see exactly what's going on. The Daily Links should have about 4600 posts in that category. | Jun 16 00:01 |
| schestowitz | Re: For immediate publication | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > The signoff is meant to be written verbatim. It may look like there are | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > typos in it, but there are not. It shouldn't give you any trouble. | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > There are three screencaps. I used -> -> -> to make the placement easy | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | > to find. | Jun 16 00:04 |
| schestowitz | Thanks, I shall have a look now. | Jun 16 00:04 |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 00:38 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 00:38 | |
| schestowitz | Don't think we'll be going to Town again until the gym reopens and then it's "on the way...." | Jun 16 00:43 |
| schestowitz | http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2020/06/15/second-phase-in-the-uk/ | Jun 16 00:43 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-schestowitz.com | schestowitz.com » Blog Archive » The ‘Second Phase’ in the UK is No Shopping Time (Unless You’re Really Desperate) | Jun 16 00:44 | |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18367943 | Jun 16 01:11 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: #PinePhone postmarketOS community edition coming soon for $150 http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138783#comment-25506 #gnu #linux | Jun 16 01:11 | |
| schestowitz | "My friend, when you’ll cover my ISOS ??? I need this exposition, since Softpedia went the way of the dodo…" | Jun 16 01:11 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.tuxmachines.org | PinePhone: postmarketOS community edition | Tux Machines | Jun 16 01:11 | |
| schestowitz | MicrosoftPedia is dead, but what's this ISOS? | Jun 16 01:11 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18367942 | Jun 16 01:12 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: Is #FreeCulture As Important As #FreeSoftware ? http://techrights.org/2020/06/15/free-culture/ #sharing #freesw | Jun 16 01:12 | |
| schestowitz | "Sure it is, actually one is intrinsically joined to the other." | Jun 16 01:12 |
| schestowitz | Same laws cover both | Jun 16 01:12 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Is Free Culture As Important As Free Software? | Techrights | Jun 16 01:12 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jun 16 06:43 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 06:43 | |
| schestowitz | 'The manually collected links will be very, very light today. More tomorrow." | Jun 16 08:54 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat) | Jun 16 09:31 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 09:31 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Emilinehope/status/1272876582319927297 | Jun 16 14:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Emilinehope: @schestowitz They open the shops and folk don’t wear masks, don’t they realise when folk get sick the shops are goi… https://t.co/txwd9JqpCz | Jun 16 14:40 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Emilinehope: @schestowitz They open the shops and folk don’t wear masks, don’t they realise when folk get sick the shops are goi… https://t.co/txwd9JqpCz | Jun 16 14:40 | |
| schestowitz | "They open the shops and folk don’t wear masks, don’t they realise when folk get sick the shops are going to close down again. If people want to shop Then Do it Safely!" | Jun 16 14:40 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/LangstrumpfPipo/status/1272875746273394694 | Jun 16 14:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@LangstrumpfPipo: @schestowitz You should be glad your postal service does not develop e-voting. | Jun 16 14:40 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/wendycockcroft/status/1272833701085413382 | Jun 16 14:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@wendycockcroft: Women and girls can't identify out of sex-based violence by men. https://t.co/QmSx1s8aTO | Jun 16 14:41 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #meduza #ru #russia ☞ Murdered in silence #Police ignored #rape allegations and death threats reported by… https://t.co/62adVudfPd | Jun 16 14:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/john04976792/status/1272811537300889602 | Jun 16 14:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@john04976792: To eliminate Covid 19 we need to lower the Planet's temperature by 2% in order to reduce the humidity and curb the… https://t.co/CfgeHSgyYE | Jun 16 14:41 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@john04976792: To eliminate Covid 19 we need to lower the Planet's temperature by 2% in order to reduce the humidity and curb the… https://t.co/CfgeHSgyYE | Jun 16 14:41 | |
| schestowitz | "To eliminate Covid 19 we need to lower the Planet's temperature by 2% in order to reduce the humidity and curb the boom ib bacteria. They are viruses favorite hosts." | Jun 16 14:41 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Emilinehope/status/1272810678676598784 | Jun 16 14:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Emilinehope: @schestowitz Am having to calm myself down, so few harming so many, trump and his cult are sociopaths. 😢 | Jun 16 14:41 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/ARetVet/status/1272808852145049600 | Jun 16 14:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@ARetVet: @schestowitz Haha there really was a time when that was cool. | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/1272802243650228224 | Jun 16 14:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@glynmoody: "Chinese have excessively exploited Tibetan natural resources, and this has created issues with air and water pollu… https://t.co/zph0nUddoG | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@glynmoody: "Chinese have excessively exploited Tibetan natural resources, and this has created issues with air and water pollu… https://t.co/zph0nUddoG | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| schestowitz | ""Chinese have excessively exploited Tibetan natural resources, and this has created issues with air and water pollution, and many animal species are now extinct" #tibet" | Jun 16 14:42 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/iridesce57/status/1272743623210254336 | Jun 16 14:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@iridesce57: ... truth ... https://t.co/5K1OcVMj1f | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/StarchyArchie/status/1272740086879342592 | Jun 16 14:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@StarchyArchie: @Bespoke_Couture cc: @Schestowitz (thoughts?) 🤔 | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/PerlDean/status/1272732518509240320 | Jun 16 14:42 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@PerlDean: Im not sure if i agree with this but nice to link my post. https://t.co/Di26rSlKyb | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz: #perl needs to #deletegithub and not become more of a prisoner of #monopoly by #microsoft https://t.co/DL6BJidlN1 | Jun 16 14:42 | |
| *swaggboi has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jun 16 15:15 | |
| *swaggboi (~swaggboi@slackware.uk/supporter/swaggboi) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 15:19 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/12/new-draft-bill-presented-in-germany-for-ratification-of-the-upca/?doing_wp_cron=1592322563.5478610992431640625000 | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Why is the ministry not doing a public consultation? | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | A public consultation was apparently denied in the past by some CDU or CSU member of the Bundestag who then became a judge on the Stjerna complaint. What a coincidence. | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:53 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | New draft bill presented in Germany for ratification of the UPCA - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 16 16:53 | |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2020 at 10:30 am | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | The new Chairman of the GFCC, Mr Harbart, is a former lawyer and MP for the CDU. According to official figures published by the German Bundestag, his earnings as a lawyer were much higher than his salary as MP. Because of this, there was even a petition against his nomination as Chairman of the GFCC. | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | He has always be in favour of the UPC, and should a new complaint come to the GFCC, it might be wiped out at once under his influence. At least as long Justice Huber is in place in the Second Chamber, this risk is rather remote. | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Mr Harbarth is not Chairman of the Second Chamber as its predecessor was, but from the First Chamber, but he can exercise its influence. | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | Jan Verbist | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2020 at 11:26 pm | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | I found some recent blogpost today by the FFII, via Twitter: | Jun 16 16:53 |
| schestowitz | https://ffii.org/ffii-rejects-the-proposal-by-the-german-ministry-of-justice-to-present-the-agreement-on-the-unified-patent-court-upca-to-the-german-parliament-for-ratification/ | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | I discovered there was also a complaint that was not treated in Belgium, by the same person. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | The legal arguments raised there were that the EPO cannot be sued for maladministration (rule of law, art2 TFEU), the discrimination of languages (difference of treatment between french and dutch speaking companies) and equality before the law (legally binding for french speakers vs non-legally binding for dutch speakers). | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | The language of the defendent under the UPC can also be forced, which seems to be contrary to some international treaties. Any ideas which treaties are covering this problem? | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ffii.org | Brexit: FFII rejects the proposal by the German Ministry of Justice to present the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA) to the German Parliament for ratification | FFII | Jun 16 16:54 | |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2020 at 10:18 am | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | In general lobbyists are rather discrete. At least in the German Ministry of Justice, we now have a name. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | When less than a week after the decision of the GFCC was disclosed, the minister in charge of the UPC published the famous communiqué that Germany was pursuing the ratification of the UPC, it was clear that it was not the minister herself who had this idea. The communiqué was manifestly prepared by some members of her ministry, acting for some lobbyists. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Mr Stjerna has clearly shown in various publications that the Ministry of Justice was filled with proponents of the UPC which tried to hide some negative aspects of the UPC for Europe and especially European SMEs, so that the Parliament would ratify without batting an eyelid. The problem is that the ratification was declared void by the GFCC. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | It was interesting to read an article of Mr Tilmann published in GRUR 2020, 441. In this article, VI, 2.b) Mr Tilmann explained that the UPC could enter into force and that the London Section of the Central Division would simply be given at least provisionally to Paris, and the life science section could be later located in a different place. This could be done on the occasion of a a further amendment needing a subsequent | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | ratification. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | The problem is that Mr Tilmann has not given the faintest legal basis for such an interpretation of the UPC, not even via the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | What is interesting is that the same statement is to be found in the explanatory note of the Ministry of Justice, relating to the new ratification act to be presented to the Parliament, see Point B. third to sixth §. We can thus suspect that Mr Tilmann had a direct influence in this respect. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | At least the draft proposal from the Ministry of Justice mentions that a political declaration of the remaining member states under Art 33(3) VCLT would be necessary. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | It appears naïve to bank on such a declaration from the remaining member states, which would have for effect, according to Mr Tilmann and the civil servants in the ministry, to at least provisionally, give the life science section to Paris. This seems wishful thing at its best. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Nevertheless it is abundantly clear that Mr Tilmann, if he is not the co-author of the explanatory note, he has at least strongly inspired it. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | In his Article in GRUR, Mr Tilmann mentioned Art 25(2) VCLT, according to which, “the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty”. For Mr Tilmann it is enough for the UK to notify its withdrawal from the UPCA under Art 25(2) | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | VCLT for it lose its status as “Member State” of the UPCA and then Italy takes over the position of the UK as far as ratification is concerned. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | It should also not be forgotten, that the UK has up to now simply declared that it does not wish to apply the UPCA, but has not officially declared its withdrawal from the agreement. In an earlier comment, I have explained that eventually this would allow the UK to blow up the UPC. I will not repeat it here. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | If Italy takes over UK’s position as far as the entry into force is concerned, I fail to see the logic behind denying Italy to take over the position of the life science section of the Central Division. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | The question raised by Mr Johnson in the present blog, as well as the question of Mr Patrick Breyer to the Commission requires a reply by the German authorities, whatever they might think or say. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/02/upca-should-be-abandoned-and-substantive-reform-at-eu-level-taken-up/?doing_wp_cron=1592029445.6969950199127197265625 | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | What is also surprising is that the new draft proposal does not say a single word about the constitutional questions raised in § 166 ff. of the decision of the GFCC about the primacy of EU law over the German Constitution. I refer here to the blog of Mr Klopschinski. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/05/18/primacy-of-eu-law-over-national-law-german-federal-constitutional-court-judge-comments-on-unified-patent-court-decision/?doing_wp_cron=1592029452.2258329391479492187500 | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | In its article in GRUR, Mr Tilmann considered that the FGCC should have replied to the question it has itself raised, but at the same time he does not see a threat for a renewed ratification in this respect, see Vi, 3, b). | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | We have here a further reason to believe that Mr Tilmann has guided the hand of the drafter of the explanation note of the new ratification proposal. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | 'UPCA should be abandoned and substantive reform at EU level taken up' - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 16 16:54 | |
| schestowitz | My grand-father used to say: if you bury your head in the sand, do not wonder if your bottom gets smacked. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | This is what might happen to Mr Tilmann and his aides, not only in the German Ministry of Justice, but also in France. A very renowned litigation lawyer even went so far as to consider the transfer to Paris of the life science section of the Central Division was a gift from Brexit, but it would be wise to keep quiet about it. I think at least this hope must have vanished by now. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Nothing against European Integration, but not the type of integration some lawyers want to push down our throats at any rate. They want a return on their investment, but this is not a reason good enough to clamber us with such a badly drafted agreement. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Primacy of EU Law over National Law – German Federal Constitutional Court Judge Comments On Unified Patent Court Decision - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 16 16:54 | |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Roufousse T. Fairfly | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2020 at 8:45 pm | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | There are 709 seats in the current 19th legislature of the Bundestag. (It is considered bloated, but that’s another story, mostly.) | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | If my math is right, you need 473 votes to get a 2/3 majority. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | The government coalition parties have together 398 votes (Union: 246; SPD: 152). So assuming there are no defections (a big “if” in my opinion, as the SPD seems vaguely inclined to rock the boat these days), you need to get 75 votes outside the GroKo to make it past the threshold. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | I wouldn’t expect the Linke or the Greens to show any particular enthusiasm for that miserable contraption, and the AfD must be handled with a very long barge pole. | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | That just about leaves FDP (liberals), which are the butt of nearly every second joke by German late night and comedy TV hosts. They have 80 seats. What awful bargain could they possibly drive in exchange for their support? And is that price really worth it for the government? | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:54 |
| schestowitz | Yoga Nanda | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2020 at 10:28 am | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | In the Germany that I am familiar with, all parties represented in Parliament, including the Liberals (FDP), except the AFD support the European patent reform. So I doubt that the required 2/3 majority cannot be secured. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | The decisive question, however, lies beyond Parliamentary majorities: How will they prevent new constitutional complaints (expect more than one this time) from being filed? Some (very) legitimate grounds are obvious from the first BVerfG decision. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2020 at 10:52 pm | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | A thread of high quality, I would say. I got a shock when I read that the GroKo would need 75 extra votes but that the FDP, with their 80 votes, can deliver exactly that.. All three Parties will then shout that they are doing all they can to foster technical innovation in Germany, a very worthy aim, and will milk the UPC idea for all that it is worth. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Why the shock? Well, the FDP are desperate for something to prove to its clients that it can still deliver and would see the UPC as ideal gift offer for its clients. Vote for me and i will bring you faster and cheaper enforcement of your patent rights. I would think that those 75 votes are more or less in the bag already. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Of course, that all depends on both the FDP and its clients falling victim to the scam, the snake oil salesmen of the UPC, that it will do something for SME’s. Sadly, the reality is that the UPC (in its present form) is good only for the global titan corporate behemoths and the multi-national litigation law firms that serve them. When will the FDP and the SDP see the light, I wonder. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2020 at 12:29 pm | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | I can only but support Max Drei when he says that the “UPC (in its present form) is good only for the global titan corporate behemoths and the multi-national litigation law firms that serve them”. He is also right when he wonders whether the FDP and the SDP will see the light. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | I would say that an information campaign, I could call it inverse lobbyism, towards Members of the Bundestag could make them think twice about ratifying such an agreement. There are enough elements at hand to justify a negative attitude towards ratification: | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – The disastrous effect of the UPC on European SMEs | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – Opening the door and facilitating IP attacks on EU industry by non-EU patent holders | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – A court which can dismiss a judge, but not giving him any means of redress (Art 10 of the Statute, part of the UPCA) | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – The fallacy of saving money with annual fees, as the average designations of EP lies between 5 and 7 | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – Translations provisions which do not allow to deal with the patent in the language it has been delivered, but in the Central Division, whereby it is claimed that there are no translations required with the UPC | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – Compatibility of the language provisions of the UPC with the London Protocol on translations. How can countries having ratified the London Protocol accept that translations in English, when the EP is granted in French or German, or in any language of an EU member state of the UPC when the EP is granted in English, have to be filed for the EP becoming a UP? I would say that the at least the London Protocol has to be amended in | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | this respect. Whether the provisional period is 12 years or shorter, the corresponding problems cannot be swept under the table. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | – The possible clash between case law of the UPC and case law of the Boards of Appeal in matters of validity. As we now have a “dynamic” interpretation of EBA decisions, this should allow the AC and the President of the EPO to put enough pressure on the EBA to get the desired result. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | There are further Damocles swords hanging over the UPCA and its ratification by Germany, to start with the question of supremacy of EP law as raised in Point 166 of the first decision of the FGCC. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Another aspect is that the UPCA has never been submitted to the CJEU. With the time lag induced by the Brexit and the complaint before the FGCC, it should have been possible to do so. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | As Madame UPC at the EPO has often repeated: “When there is a will, there is a way”. Why was there never a will to submit the UPCA to the CJEU? After all, the EPLA was submitted to the CJEU, and it would have appeared logical to do the same with the UPCA. It is not enough for the promoters of the UPCA to claim that it is conform to EU law, it would have way better to bring the proof of it. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Can one think what the CJEU will say should the UPCA enters into force and the UPC starts delivering decisions having as member state a state having officially declared that it does not want to participate, and for which after Brexit Brussels I on mutual recognition is not any longer applicable? Probably nothing very positive. The only conclusion is that the promoters of the UPCA still bank on a fait accompli to frighten the CJEU to | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | go against the UPCA. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | It has been proposed quite a while ago (not by me!) to extent the opposition period before the EPO to the whole life of a patent. I can agree with this view, as after all, if the proprietor of the patent can request a limitation or even a revocation during all the life of patent, why should it not be possible to third parties to file an opposition at the EPO during the whole life of the patent? | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | I would go one step further. If the opposition period for the EPO is extended to any EP, whether it is a bundle or a unitary patent, it would be possible to avoid divergent case law between national courts of the member states and of the UPC in validity matters. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | National courts and the UPC would only be competent for infringement. In other words, a kind of international bifurcation! I can already hear all kind of screams from all those involved, national courts and IP lawyers, whether it is not sure which of the two would scream louder. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | In view of the low number of truly transnational litigations in Europe, the need for something like the UPC should be scrutinised and it should be left to truly independent experts to decide whether it is an absolute necessity. A proper assessment of the cost saving should be made, and not by merely comparing apples and pears as has been done for the present UPC. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | If it turns out that something like a UP would be helpful, such a new UPC could be called UPC2 only dealing with infringement. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | One fundamental prerequisite would be that the BA of the EPO become truly independent of the management of the EPO and possibly from the AC, which they are not presently. Alone the fact that re-appointment of members of BA according to some “performance” criteria, which are not even public, shows how their independence is inexistent. This is reinforced the present Boards of Appeals Committee, in which representatives of the AC | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | and external judges are sitting. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Do you know any judicial institution which is controlled by members of the executive and judges external to it? Applied to the CJEU it would means that representatives of the Commission and external judges control the CJEU. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Such a UPC2 should preferably be also valid for all EU members, and not for merely some. In order to protect European SMEs more than some fee reductions and ceilings in damages should be introduced. | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Would this not be a wonderful topic for a conference of ministers of the Contracting States responsible for patent matters, as provided in Art 4a EPC2000? In 2022 we will have had the third 5 years period, and nothing has happened in this respect. Would it not be time for the AC and the management of the EPO to start abiding by the EPC? | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | It is allowed to dream, isn’t it? | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!!! | Jun 16 16:55 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | news2go | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2020 at 1:33 pm | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | If the German Government – as a major driver behind the reform – wants to stand the slightest chance of bringing the UPCA in force in unamended form, it must happen before the UK finally leaves the EU, currently envisaged for the end of this year. After this has taken place, amendment becomes plainly inevitable. They know that any UPCA revision will require highly unwelcome concessions from their side, causing them to beat this | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | dead horse as if there was no tomorrow. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Part of the problem is that many of the individuals involved have a personal stake in the fate of the UPCA as it stands, be it of a merely financial nature, be it career prospects, be it both. As long as the major decisions are made by the always same people, who also bear the responsibility for what has happened so far and are thus strongly biased towards the one particular outcome serving their needs, unlikely as it may be to | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | achieve it, reason will have no place in this. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Jan Van Hoey | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 6:50 pm | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | “it must happen before the UK finally leaves the EU, currently envisaged for the end of this year. ” | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | UK has already left the EU. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 1:13 pm | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | So let me summarise. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | The German government passes a law that the BVerfG voids the grounds of unconstitutionality. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Subsequently, a written question is submitted to the European Commission, asking them to confirm whether CJEU case law precludes Germany from ratifying the UPC Agreement. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | The German government responds to all of this by presenting a draft law that the BVerfG has very clearly warned would also be unconstitutional. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | In other words, the German government has decided to press on despite very clear reasons to believe that the end goal would be unlawful. And all of this carried out in public, where an informed (and, in parts, highly sceptical) profession can clearly see what is going on. You have got to hand it to the persuasive powers of those pro-UPC lobbyists! | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Roufousse T. Fairfly | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 3:01 pm | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Some more thoughts, FWIW… | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – Sanitary distancing precautions aren’t about to be lifted any time soon, but summoning a special sitting with all MPs present would imply packing 709+ warm (?) bodies hugger-mugger in an overall surface of about 1000 square meters. One could reduce the risk somewhat by taking over the visitor’s gallery. Alternatively, the actual debating on the floor could be curtailed, and the ceremony reduced to having MPs entering one by | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | one from outside just to cast their vote according to party discipline and be done with it. Would Mr. Schäuble go along with that? The resulting optics wouldn’t be good for such a high profile event that is bound to attract a lot more media attention in the current context. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – Art. 79(2) GG not only demands a 2/3 majority in the House, but also approval in the same proportion by the constitutional council (Bundesrat). I’m somewhat befuddled about the dynamics prevailing there, but I surmise that the higher threshold demanded might prompt closer scrutiny. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – Section C of the bill laconically invokes “TINA” (“C. Alternativen : Keine.”), as usual. ’nuff said… | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – In the Hansard for 9 March 2017 (Plenarprotokoll 18/221) mentioned in the BVerfG decision, there is a speech by Renate Künast which clearly suggests opposition by the B90/Grünen fraction. However, surprisingly, Harald Petzold of Die Linke made a speech pretty much entirely in favour of the bill. These two parties have 67 and 69 seats in the current parliament. There is nothing on the record on this matter by the FDP, which is | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | somewhat strange, as justice-related matters seemed to be their natural stomping ground. (The post of Justice minister traditionally went to a FDP MP in coalitions involving them, and Ingo Kober was a card-carrying member of the FDP and a Staatssekretär at the BMJ his tenure as EPOrg president.) | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – The BVerfG appears to rely on a video recording (which I can’t locate) to determine how the vote on the prior bill was organised. From the description, it sounded like one of these shameful rubber stamping sessions with the barest quorum present, e.g., as in this after-hours second and third reading of a security bill, which became a law in all of 87 seconds: https://youtu.be/sHsJNDdKrh0?t=37 . (Why do you need all these MdB | Jun 16 16:56 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.youtube.com | YouTube | Jun 16 16:56 | |
| schestowitz | for, if most business is conducted that way, and the real decisions made elsewhere?) | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | – Defeating this new bill could possibly involve the active contribution, or at least abstention, of the AfD Fraktion. A rejoicing prospect — NOT. 🙁 | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 3:06 pm | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Dear news2go, | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | I would not say that the German Government is a major driver behind the reform, but some IP lawyer firms which guide the hand of the drafters of the new ratification act. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Even if the UPCA enters into force before UK has left the EU, and there is not too much time left, it will not help much as the question of the London Section will remain. I would even say that the mess will be perfect. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | It is not to be forgotten that Mr Tilmann has opinions which vary with its actual interests. After the CJEU had given a blow to the EPLA, he was of the opinion that the successor of EPLA would only be reserved to EU member states, in order to claim a few years later that UK could stay in the UPC. At the time there was still a convergence of interests between lawyers on both sides of the Channel. | Jun 16 16:56 |
| schestowitz | Another one of the participants of the drafting committee was even hoping that other non EU member states could join the UPC. He must have forgotten the opinion C 1/09, and was merely driven by the hope that the UPC could be more attractive. Imagine the more countries you can litigate in one and the same action, the higher the fee, even if infringement would not occur at once in all EU member states! | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | All those IP lawyer firms having sat in the drafting committee of the rules of procedure of the UPC are desperate to see a return on investment, and want to be able to fill their pockets with supranational litigation. They could not give a damn whether it is good for Europe, or better what is good for them is good for Europe, to paraphrase an old say. They are just eager to fill their pockets. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | At least the British lawyer firms having sat in the drafting committee have now given up their hopes since the UK government has clearly stated that it will not participate in the UPC. The UK government made it plainly clear that it does not want decisions of the CJEU to be applied in the UK. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Those UK IP lawyers firms have now come up with the idea to adapt the UK litigation procedure in order for them to stay in the running and even to develop a system which could resist the competition of the UPC, and even top it up. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Sometimes there seems to be a kind of rat race between those two poles who were united as long the perspective of a joint judicial system allowed the hope of filling their pockets on both sides of the Channel. This is also a reason why on this side of the Channel some people now want the UPC to start before the Brits could develop their system. But one thing is common to all those people: the eagerness to fill their pockets, and for | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | this they are prepared to spread blatant lies. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | A friend of mine has just written to me: | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | “The UPC story also shows how decision makers are deciding: not based on facts and critical assessments, not listening to “advisors” without any critical attitude (in a normal world, they would be called lobbyist… and lawyers that have a huge interest in the system…)… and which advice is -at least in part- based on lies”. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | How true this is! | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!!! | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 4:36 pm | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | With regard to the supposed “withdrawal” of the UK from the UPC Agreement, I would merely direct the attention of Mr Tilmann and Ms Lambrecht to Articles 42(2), 54 and 56 of the Vienna Convention. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | The UPC Agreement does not contain any provisions that govern withdrawal. Thus, Articles 42(2), 54 and 56 VCLT apply. Of particular importance in this regard is Article 56(2) VCLT: | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | “A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1”. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Thus, under international law, the UK will remain a Contracting Member State (CMS) to the UPCA Agreement until at least 12 months have passed after it has consulted with the other CMSs (Article 54 VCLT) and has given notice of its intention to withdraw. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | With regard to this exercise, the relevant boxes simply have not been ticked. The UK’s notification under Article 50 TEU is not really enough on this point. Also, one might recall that Messrs Tilmann & Co were, until very recently, arguing that the UK could participate in the UPCA irrespective of Brexit. It seems that such arguments may now come back to bite them! | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 6:43 pm | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | To quote the BMJV’s statement: | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | “Es kann aber nicht so verstanden werden, dass es einen Kammerstandort in einem Nicht-Vertragsmitgliedstaat errichten beziehungsweise belassen möchte”. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | (“It cannot, however, be understood to mean that it wishes to establish or maintain a chamber in a non-contracting Member State”) | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | This statement is clearly contrary to the position adopted by the BMJV between the Brexit vote and issuance of the UK government’s statement regarding non-participation in the UPC. However, it also makes no sense. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Each participant to the UPC Agreement is designated as “Contracting Member State”. Thus, a NON-“Contracting Member State” is simply a State that is not party to the UPCA. The BMJV’s statement is therefore based upon the false premise that the UK is no longer a “Contracting Member State” to the UPC Agreement. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | It is so unbelievably disappointing to see such misdirection and misrepresentation emanating from a body that is supposed to be tasked with upholding the rule of law in Germany. Frankly, this has all of the makings of a major scandal. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 8:52 pm | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Why overlook the wording “Member State”? The UK cannot be a Contracting Member State any longer for the simple reason that it is not a Member State. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2020 at 11:54 am | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Can you please explain why the change in status of the UK (regarding the definition of “Member State” in the UPC Agreement) is decisive in this context? | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Article 42 VCLT reads as follows. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | “The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the WITHDRAWAL OF A PARTY, may take place ONLY as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty”. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | It is no doubt for this reason that the Chair of the UPC Preparatory Committee (Mr Ramsay) was quoted in a JUVE article as follows: | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | “There are no provisions in the UPC agreement for the case of a member state that has ratified the agreement to drop out. It’s therefore very likely that the UK will have to launch a procedure under the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties”. | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | Thus, despite its change in status in the context of EU law, the UK remains a party to the UPC Agreement, which is a treaty under a different (ie international) law. In view of Article 56(2) VCLT, this will remain the case unless and until 12 months have passed from the moment that UK notifies the other Contracting Member States of its intention to withdraw from the UPC Agreement. That moment has not (yet) occurred. It is | Jun 16 16:57 |
| schestowitz | therefore incorrect, or at least highly misleading, to imply that the other Contracting Member States can operate as if the UK were no longer a party to the UPC Agreement. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | There are also other possible consequences to the fact that (according to the VCLT) the UK remains a party to the UPC Agreement. For example, it is necessary to question whether the UPC Agreement can be operated whilst the UK remains a party to that Agreement. This requires examination of whether, under the VCLT, the change in the UK’s status represents a ground for invalidating or terminating the UPC Agreement. It may | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | also require consideration of whether certain provisions of the UPC Agreement are separable from those that are clearly rendered inoperable. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | It seems pretty clear that provisions of the UPC Agreement that are rendered inoperable by the UK’s change of status are fundamental to that Agreement. The continued operation of the UPC Agreement therefore becomes tricky, on the grounds that the VCLT only really contemplates withdrawal from a treaty, suspension of the operation of a treaty (in whole or in part), or outright termination of a treaty. None of these would | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | appear to be suitable to keep the current UPC Agreement alive. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Thus, if the BMJV is convinced that there is a way through all of this mess, they should explain in detail why the prima facie very serious problems under EU and international laws have been resolved, or why they will have been resolved by the time of the vote on the proposed law. All I have seen so far is a lot of hand-waving, as well as an ample supply of smoke and mirrors. This is not convincing. The serious problems | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | remain and should be directly addressed. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Russell Barton | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | I believe it remains an EU member state for the purposes on the UPCA until the end of the year but you may be referring to the situation after that | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Withdrawal agreement: | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Art 127- 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, Union law shall be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Art 2 – “Union law” means: | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | (v) the agreements between Member States entered into in their capacity as Member States of the Union; | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Art 7-For the purposes of this Agreement, all references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States in provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall be understood as including the United Kingdom | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2020 at 7:29 pm | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | I don’t understand all this talk about “when” the UK leaves the EU. The UK HAS already left. it is no longer extant as an EU Member State. if it were a Norwegian Blue (as in the Monty Python sketch) it would be nailed to its perch. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Imagine Boris Johnson revolving legs. They have already carried him beyond the edge of the cliff edge, the sheer drop. He is now in mid-air but (only because of the Transition Agreement) he is not falling yet. There is no way back to the safe ground at the top of the cliff though. It’s only a matter of time before he plummets. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Will he arrange a safety net, to arrest his (and the UK’s) fall? No. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Will he acquiesce to the offered 2 year extension in the TA? Again, no? | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Is there no limit to the amount of self-harm the UK is inflicting upon itself? | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Can the rest of the EU cobble together a “UPC Mark II” ? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. But how are you going to buy enough votes from the smaller EU Member States, the “little people” of the EU? There’s a way there too. Just ask the President of the EPO how he does it. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Does any of this matter? You bet. You only realise how precious was The Rule of Law after you have dumped it. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2020 at 7:12 am | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Dear Max Drei, | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | As far as buying votes for small member states, no need to resort to the EPO. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | In spite of the strong resistance of the Portuguese industry and profession, Portugal ratified the UPC. The reason is very simple: it has been offered an arbitration chamber. The second arbitration chamber is foreseen in Slovenia, which to my knowledge has not yet ratified. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | That it does not really work as at the EPO, is shown by the attitude of Poland and of the Czech Republic: they might have signed, but will not ratify as the UPC is bad for their industry. I take bets that Slovakia will follow. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | But at the moment, in view of the ratification of enough other countries, the missing German ratification is the only obstacle left to the entry in force of the UPC, This explains why the German pro-UPC lobby is strongly asking in Germany. That it has invaded the Ministry of Justice is now plainly obvious. | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoo barb: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jun 16 16:58 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 16 16:58 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jun 16 18:46 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) | Jun 16 18:46 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 19:10 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 19:11 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jun 16 21:00 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Jun 16 21:01 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 21:06 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 21:09 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jun 16 22:39 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jun 16 22:39 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 22:59 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 22:59 | |
| *swaggboi has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Jun 16 23:06 | |
| *swaggboi (~swaggboi@slackware.uk/supporter/swaggboi) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:06 | |
| *rianne has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jun 16 23:09 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Jun 16 23:14 | |
| *swaggboi has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *nergal[m]1 has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *TechrightsBN has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *hook54321 has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *acer-box has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *libertybox has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *moriah has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *MinceR has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *ChanServ has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (*.net *.split) | Jun 16 23:33 | |
| *ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *tolkien.freenode.net gives channel operator status to ChanServ | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *MinceR (mincer@unaffiliated/mincer) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *tolkien.freenode.net gives channel operator status to acer-box | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *nergal[m]1 (nergalmatr@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-murebfxwrjgnhegy) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *moriah (~quassel@unaffiliated/kierra) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *TechrightsBN (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:37 | |
| *swaggboi (~swaggboi@slackware.uk/supporter/swaggboi) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:38 | |
| *hook54321 (sid149355@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dckshxfdknxetlss) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 16 23:42 | |
| schestowitz | Re: The SUEPO Observer June 2020 (full edition) | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | > After a long interruption, the Observer is back. The June 2020 edition | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | > (full version) is available and attached to this email. | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | Two points/Qs: | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | 1) someone has already sent it to me | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | 2) by all means send me anything of relevance, even if there's a change I have it already | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | The question: am I right to assume this is the first time in years since last SUEPO Informs/Observer? Did I miss something in between? I think I've been missing a lot of those things, as I lack access, and it limits what I can cover and how much. | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | SUEPO itself does seem to support TR, but not publicly. | Jun 16 23:43 |
| schestowitz | > Hi, | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > I wonder if anyone on this list can share their experience of using | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > Jitsi to successfully conduct meetings? Or can recommend a service that | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > provides this facility? | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:44 |
| schestowitz | > I have tried a couple of servers, including the FSF one, but the time | Jun 16 23:45 |
| schestowitz | > lag was so long it made serious dialogue impossible. | Jun 16 23:45 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:45 |
| schestowitz | > Thanks for your time and attention, | Jun 16 23:45 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:45 |
| schestowitz | > Sounds better. | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | >> If you have a GUI installed locally for mysql and can load in the DB, it | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | >> might be easier to see exactly what's going on. | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > A GUI won't help. The structure of the WP database is rather opaque due | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > to badly named fields. The end result will be some kind of join, | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > probably with three tables. | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | >> The Daily Links should have about 4600 posts in that category. | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | > Ok. That's a good way to check. | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | I took a lot early this morning. I saw that, as expected, there are some dupes there (identical lines), probably due to revisions. Those can be annulled with uniq or similar. It seems like you present link count, having not yet parsed for domain name/s? | Jun 16 23:48 |
| schestowitz | Re: You might like to publish this: A New Ethos for Free Software | Jun 16 23:49 |
| schestowitz | > Here is the text inline, and attached. Please retain the italics, if | Jun 16 23:49 |
| schestowitz | > possible. | Jun 16 23:49 |
| schestowitz | ON IT now :-) | Jun 16 23:49 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!