Join us now at the IRC channel.
| <--TechrightsBN has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Jan 20 01:51 | |
| schestowitz | >> But... I thought I should at least say something. | Jan 20 03:31 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | >> I am starting to work again on articles right now. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > I still hold hope that one day M$ versus the hospitals will be able to | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > be published in its entirety. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | I have all the notes. Maybe if the source changes career/workplace, publishing will be simpler. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | >> The Gates thing... I have more stuff coming, just need more time to | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | >> process it. Would rather say nothing than say something I cannot prove. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > That is very importance series. While delay works against the truth in | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > this case and allows Bill to cover his tracks, if needed, I agree that | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > it is more important to be 100% accurate. Continue to stick to 100% | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > provable, documented facts without commentary or speculation. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | Someone who published a new book (author) told me she had referenced us. That was minutes ago. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/DeanaSacks/status/1219076691018035200 | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | Didn't check anything about it/her. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | It's RARE for >anyone< to get access to such sources/info (like EPO in 2014), so when you get it you want to think hard of a strategy and not hurry. There's no urgency or 'competition'. Also, if you do a decent job, more people come forth (or more from the same). | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | >> Thanks again, startpage article next (lots of READCTED evidence related | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | >> to this pasted into IRC moments ago). | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | > The purchase of Starpage was a sad, harmful event. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | Now they attack everyone, including a source of mine. | Jan 20 03:31 |
| schestowitz | Do we want to touch the overpopulation angle? It might do more harm than good to a series that otherwise focuses on media, child abuse, and hypocrisy. | Jan 20 03:33 |
| -->libertybox (~schestowi@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:38 | |
| -->acer-box__ (~acer-box@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:38 | |
| <--acer-box__ has quit (Changing host) | Jan 20 03:38 | |
| -->acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:38 | |
| ---ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box__ | Jan 20 03:38 | |
| <--libertybox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 20 03:41 | |
| <--acer-box has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 20 03:41 | |
| <--X-Scale has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jan 20 05:14 | |
| -->X-Scale` (~ARM@31.22.167.156) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 05:16 | |
| ---X-Scale` is now known as X-Scale | Jan 20 05:16 | |
| schestowitz | >> Do we want to touch the overpopulation angle? It might do more harm than | Jan 20 06:27 |
| schestowitz | >> good to a series that otherwise focuses on media, child abuse, and | Jan 20 06:27 |
| schestowitz | >> hypocrisy. | Jan 20 06:27 |
| schestowitz | > Overpopulation is probably one of the more serious problems on the | Jan 20 06:27 |
| schestowitz | > planet. There's a lot to be said but even some of the world's top | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | > scientists don't dare stir things up. Maybe posthumously... | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | > But to make a long story short, it would be best to leave that out from | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | > articles on him for now. | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | That was my gut feeling as well. | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | The people associated with it are dodgy to say the least. | Jan 20 06:28 |
| schestowitz | We already get cited by QAnon crap, which isn't helpful. | Jan 20 06:28 |
| <--schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 20 06:28 | |
| -->schestowitz (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 06:29 | |
| ---ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz | Jan 20 06:29 | |
| schestowitz | >>> Do we want to touch the overpopulation angle? It might do more harm than | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >>> good to a series that otherwise focuses on media, child abuse, and | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >>> hypocrisy. | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> Overpopulation is probably one of the more serious problems on the | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> planet. There's a lot to be said but even some of the world's top | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> scientists don't dare stir things up. Maybe posthumously... | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> But to make a long story short, it would be best to leave that out from | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> articles on him for now. | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | > but keep the links and references for later please. They will come in | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | > very handy in a year or two. | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | Yes, that's the only stuff I leave flagged for now. | Jan 20 06:30 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | Hi Roy, | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | Please don’t publish the following unless they disappear me :) | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | I don’t want to be the only person sitting on this. Also, it will give you a full briefing on what communications I’ve had with Seattle PD and the status on my public records request. | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | Seattle PD Correspondence Record/Timeline | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | September 13, 2019 - Written request made to King County Sheriff’s Office | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 07:03 |
| schestowitz | > HELP IS GOOD! | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > I wish I knew what that meant :) | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > Here’s another entry to add to the journal... | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > * *January 9, 2019* - Received status update email from Sauncy Hurst: | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > “The purpose of this email is to provide you with a status update. | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > We are having technical problems with trying to process your | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > request, because this report is over 2000 pages it keeps trashing on | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > us. We are trying to figure out how it get this processed. At this | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | > time, we anticipate getting back to you on or about February 17, 2020.” | Jan 20 07:08 |
| schestowitz | >> The people associated with it are dodgy to say the least. | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | >> We already get cited by QAnon crap, which isn't helpful. | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > Which harms by increasing polarization because apparently only one group | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > or another is even allowed to discuss particular topics, and qanon are | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > complete nutjobs that noone wants to be associated with. It's part of | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > the cessation of politics in the US as the Empire winds down from | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > outside (and inside) meddling. Political discourse has all but | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > completely stopped in the US and that stupidity is spreading to Europe. | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | > Focused arties are getting polarized into basically two blocks. | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | I am working carefully to also isolate us from the antivaxxers | Jan 20 07:13 |
| schestowitz | Just like this they've kicked the can down the road another month and a half. I won't say anything just yet (publicly), let's wait for their next excuse and keep stock of them all. | Jan 20 07:23 |
| schestowitz | >> I am working carefully to also isolate us from the antivaxxers | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > Good. I expect that some of the cranks are sincere cranks but many | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > others are simply using the cranks to smear TR by trying to give the | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > appearance of a connection. Either way it is important to keep them at | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > a distance and focus on facts. | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | >> Yes, that's the only stuff I leave flagged for now. | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | >> | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > Would Mike Masnick or anyone else have tips about dealing with FOIA | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > obstructions? He has experience with FOIA. | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | I don't think they'd want to touch this kind of story. | Jan 20 07:56 |
| schestowitz | > I can't duplicate the problem with the zeros from the other day. Seems | Jan 20 07:59 |
| schestowitz | > to work ok with the feeds, just the commondreams one gives trouble still. | Jan 20 07:59 |
| schestowitz | It seems solved now, so no worries... | Jan 20 07:59 |
| schestowitz | Pleroma has been down for 4 hours, so I do not post much just yet | Jan 20 07:59 |
| schestowitz | > I’m with you. I was thinking right away we need to make a strategic multi-prong move behind the scenes. | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > Perhaps get a few people to put in separate requests but much smaller ones on the same case. E.g. put in a request for the search affidavit by itself. See if that comes back sooner, etc. | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | I will speak to someone interested in the case (another US citizen) | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | Jan 20 08:13 | |
| schestowitz | > That’s what made me think it may be worth putting in separate smaller requests. I’m afraid to ask her in an email which of my 5 requests is the one that is 2000 pages. It’s certainly not the affidavit. Just asking might turn into an additional month delay. | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > We've meanwhile been contacted by victims (of such abuse). I cannot comment further on | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > this, but we'll be getting further help. | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | I'm sad to read that there were so many, though even one is one too many. | Jan 20 08:13 |
| schestowitz | <li> | Jan 20 09:28 |
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://www.androidcentral.com/how-install-linux-your-chromebook">How to install Linux on your Chromebook</a></h5> | Jan 20 09:28 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Jan 20 09:28 |
| schestowitz | <p>Chromebooks can do a lot right out of the box. However, if you want just a little more, you can install Linux apps to most newer models (see the full list here) and have access to a full catalog of desktop-class applications. </p></blockquote></li> | Jan 20 09:28 |
| schestowitz | <li> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://www.techrepublic.com/article/a-matter-of-license-and-lock-in/">Open source: A matter of license and lock-in</a></h5> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | <p>But Red Hat has other plans. The company decided--seemingly out of the blue--to drop support for the docker runtime engine. In place of docker came Podman. When trying to ascertain why Red Hat split with Docker, nothing came clear. Sure, I could easily draw the conclusion that Red Hat had grown tired of the security issues surrounding Docker and wanted to take matters in their own hands. There was also Red | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | Hat's issue with "no big fat daemons." If that's the case, how do they justify their stance on systemd? </p> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | <p> Here's where my tinfoil hat comes into play. Understand this is pure conjecture here and I have zero facts to back these claims up. However, after hearing what I have to say about the issue, you might find it possible to draw the same conclusion as I. Also understand that I have a great deal of respect for Red Hat. They were there when I first started my journey with Linux (way before the RHEL/Fedora split) | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | and they'll be here well beyond the days when my fingers are no longer capable of typing words (shudder). Red Hat has done amazing things for Linux and open source, and will continue to do so. </p> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | <p> However, Red Hat is now owned by IBM. IBM was desperate to gain serious traction within the cloud. To do that, IBM needed Red Hat, so they purchased the company. Next, IBM had to score a bit of vendor lock-in. Using a tool like docker wouldn't give them that lock-in. However, if Red Hat developed and depended on their own container runtime, vendor lock-in was attainable.</p></blockquote></li> | Jan 20 09:32 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/TallElfin/status/1219193112888782848 | Jan 20 10:14 |
| schestowitz | he's not a nerd, he's a predator who studied law and never graduated | Jan 20 10:15 |
| -->TechrightsBN (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 10:15 | |
| TechrightsBN | Hello World! I'm TechrightsBN running phIRCe v0.75 | Jan 20 10:15 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/TallElfin/status/1219193112888782848 | Jan 20 10:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@TallElfin: @schestowitz I think it's important to point out that Uber Nerd is wearing black socks on the beach. | Jan 20 10:15 | |
| schestowitz | he's not a nerd, he's a predator who studied law and never graduated | Jan 20 10:16 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1219024659699716096 | Jan 20 11:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: Attentive Observer, or some IP lawyer not understanding the right of quotation "Techrigts and Zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!… https://t.co/4Tp70JJ4qC | Jan 20 11:38 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@zoobab: Attentive Observer, or some IP lawyer not understanding the right of quotation "Techrigts and Zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!… https://t.co/4Tp70JJ4qC | Jan 20 11:38 | |
| schestowitz | "Attentive Observer, or some IP lawyer not understanding the right of quotation "Techrigts and Zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Directly or indirectly. No cutting into pieces and publishing under one’s own name!! At the least respect other people’s IP" http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/18/whats-the-worst-that-could-happen-constitutional-complaints-against-the-epo-in-germany …' | Jan 20 11:38 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | What's the worst that could happen - Constitutional complaints against the EPO in Germany - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jan 20 11:38 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/18/whats-the-worst-that-could-happen-constitutional-complaints-against-the-epo-in-germany/ | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Richard, your “worst case” horrifies me. Thanks for doing the work of researching it, writing it and posting it. It reads so persuasively that one is left with a renewed feeling of anger with the EPO past-President and his enablers, that their contrived vendetta with the judges of the Boards of Appeal (to clear the way for a Paris-based UPC) has brought us to the present shambolic situation. Your piece leaves me with the feeling that | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | your worst case is a real possibility. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Attention other readers. Can you reassure me that Richard’s piece to be regarded as scare-mongering? Or is he right and, if so, what can be done, in reality, to save the situation? I mean, getting established at the European Patent Organisation a true “separation of powers” (legislative branch, judicative and administrative) would be a magnificent achievement. Who amongst us thinks the EPO’s Administrative Council has got what it | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | would take, to make that a reality? | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | LOL | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 18, 2020 AT 10:13 PM | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | „Who amongst us thinks the EPO’s Administrative Council has got what it would take?„ | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | HAHAHAAAAA hahahahahaaaaaa that was a good one. Thanks Maxdrei. LOL. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 18, 2020 AT 4:07 PM | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | In the wake of the upheaval of the complaint against the UPC before the German Federal Constitutional Court (FGCC), the complaints about the independence of the BA were send to the background. It is good to draw the attention to this problem. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | I would consider it reasonable if the FGCC would first deal with the complaints about the independence of the BA before deciding upon the UPC. After all, the patent to be vetted by the UPC is a patent granted by the EPO, and those complaints are much older. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | With the actions of the former president of the EPO, by denying a member of the BA access to the building, he ignored completely the separation of powers. By requesting the EBA to rubber stamp its decision and that of the AC, he wanted to take direct influence on the outcome of a case before the EBA. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | His successor, goes along the same line. He bluntly wants the EBA to amend its case law about Art 53, b) without wanting to amend the latter. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | The Chairman of the BA is only independent on the paper as he only can have the functions and powers delegated to him by the President of the European Patent Office. The President of the European Patent Office may provide the President of the Boards of Appeal with the necessary resources, as set out in the adopted budget, but the final responsibility for the budget lies with the president of the EPO. I understand something different under | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | independence. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Before all the changes to the BA, they were in a position to decide autonomously their rules of procedure. Now they are heard, but the final decision to propose the RPBA lies with a Board of Appeal Committee comprising members of the AC and external judges. In this respect the independence of the BA has also been curtailed. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | If a reappointment of a member depends on some evaluation of the member’s or Chairman’s performance, this is also not promoting the independence of the BA. At least the criterion for evaluation of the performance should have been made public. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | There is also an interesting case law decided by the same Chamber of the FGCC. Judges can be named for a limited period, but under two clear conditions: they have to be civil servants for a life time, and they cannot be reappointed. All things which are not the case for quite a number of BA members, unless they are former examiners with a life time contract or detached by the judiciary of their country of origin. And all have to be | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | reappointed. If the FGCC is not ignoring its own case law, this could also be an interesting point to discuss. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Techrigts or Zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Directly or indirectly. No cuting into pieces and publishing under one’s own name!! At the least respect other people’s IP | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | One of those... | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 18, 2020 AT 10:59 PM | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Article 4a EPC2000? | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | A diplomatic conference may not have been necessary yet, but a step below should have happened. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Staff at the EPO did ask management why management did not call for a conference of ministers, and the answer staff got was typical. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Management feared uncomfortable questions regarding staff policies, and that management would not be able to set the points of discussions. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | Yes, management would have control over the initially set topics of discussions. But politicians do have a knack for changing the preliminary topics of discussions, and decide completely other stuff, thus denying EPO management control over the discussions. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | And the previous head of the European Patent Granting Authority did not want to risk to open a can of worms, and preferred to be in open contradiction to the EPC he was being paid to follow and uphold. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | @MaxDrei: the AC does not have the powers to amend the EPC to achieve that, nor are they interested in following the EPC for a long term solution to these problems. They acknowledged that the cases do have merit, and enhanced the perception of independence, but did follow the management’s proposal and introduced a limited separate budget for DG3, wich gives the EPO president unprecedented control over the boards of appeal. | Jan 20 11:39 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 19, 2020 AT 9:57 AM | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | In 2004/2005 there was a proposal emanating from DG5 (which was still managed and not administered as it is presently) attempting to give the BA much more independence. It even had the support of the then president of the EPO. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The BA will be truly independent the day on which they will have their own budget and all the corresponding prerogatives. All the reforms introduced in R12a to 12d should be reversed. That the EPO administration could help the BA with purely administrative tasks is a possibility, but only if the EPO administration executes the instructions of the BA without questioning those. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The right to present members of the BA to the AC should be removed from the President of the EPO! This is the reason why the backlog of the BA kept rising between 2010 and 2018. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | People in DG5 realised in 2004/2005 that the question of independence was of utmost importance and it was clear that one day the question would come up. The Administrative Council refused to discuss the paper and left the situation as it was until a famous French civil(?) servant(sic) took over, with all the consequences we know. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | He took offence of the interlocutory decision in R19/12, and we all know what followed. Not even the perception of independence increased as he cynically claimed. The AC rubber stamped all the proposals brought forward by the then tenant of the 10th floor. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The AC accepted the transfer of the BA to Haar, and this is not for free, and also accepted recently to invest lots of Mio € in a rented building when some buildings owned by the EPO are empty! | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | This is simply to say that you cannot count on the AC to change anything. The tail is still wagging the dog! The cooperation budget is an excellent tool to bring about the desired result. And the new president has put the right person in charge! | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The only thing the AC refused was to pay the fine imposed on the present president after the famous episode at the Munich airport. One can wonder what brought its members to have the guts to displease the president. It was probably difficult to justify such a payment vis-à-vis their national authorities. But more than that is probably not to be expected. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Only external pressure, for instance from a national court like the FGCC could bring change into the matter. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Let’s hope that this happens. It would be for the good of the EPO. But do not recon on the AC to change anything! | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Techrigts and Zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Directly or indirectly. No cutting into pieces and publishing under one’s own name!! At the least respect other people’s IP | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The Convention watchdog | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 20, 2020 AT 10:00 AM | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The deficiencies of the organisation of the judiciary within the European Patent Organisation have been known for long (see the Sedemund-Treiber Report (CA/84/97). To remove them, the 2004 Draft Proposal of a revision of the EPC for implementing the organisational autonomy of the Boards of Appeal was conceived. In its essence, it was based on preparatory work of a working party of the Boards of Appeal (see Messerli, liber amicorum Gert | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Kolle and Dieter Stauder, Cologne 2005, pages 441 ff), whereas the recent structural reform worked out by the EPO’s administration ignored the essential points raised by Board members (see the position papers of the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal, http://amba-epo.org/). The main aim of this reform was increasing the output of the Boards of Appeal by subjecting the members of the Boards to reporting and reporting | Jan 20 11:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-amba-epo.org | AMBA | Home | Jan 20 11:40 | |
| schestowitz | based reappointment, thereby further weakening their personal independence. To make things worse, the Office and the Contracting States do not hesitate to publicly express which outcome they expect in pending proceedings. The EPO and the Administrative Council missed the opportunity to reanimate the 2004 Draft (CA/46/04) which the Office had chosen to remove from its website. It could hardly come as a surprise if the German Constitutional | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Court drew from the existing deficiencies serious consequences for the system. The political responsibilities should be clear. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | zoobab | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 19, 2020 AT 11:28 PM | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | “impartial tribunal previously established by law” | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The ECHR jurisprudence also says you cannot setup courts where its rules of procedure are not shaped by parliaments. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The UPC falls into this category, where the 130 pages of the rules of procedure were never written nor ratified by any parliament. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | The ISDS courts of the CETA, and subsequent bilateral treaties also suffer from the same problem. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | @Attentive Observer the right of quotation cannot be waived. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | EQE | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 20, 2020 AT 9:10 AM | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | There is in fact precedent from the BverfG. The EQE was challanged and, if I remember correctly, it was brought forward that there is no possibility to challange the results in a court of law. Art. 19 was also mentioned, but to no avail, the EQE still exists 😉 I am surprised that this “decision” of not accepting the case is not mentioned more often. | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | – 2 BvR 2368/99 – | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2001/04/rk20010404_2bvr236899.html | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | There might be an additonal case, but I cannot remember exactly. I researched this when I needed a break from studying for the EQE a few years back. I lost interest in the matter as I passed the EQE 😉 | Jan 20 11:40 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de | Bundesverfassungsgericht - Entscheidungen - Unzulässige Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Prüfungsentscheidungen im Rahmen der Eignungsprüfung zur Zulassung als Vertreter beim Europäischen Patentamt nach dem Europäischen Patentübereinkommen | Jan 20 11:40 | |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | JANUARY 20, 2020 AT 10:22 AM | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | Well, perhaps one reason that decision has not been mentioned is that it contains a number of assumptions / findings of “fact” that are now in dispute. For example, and based upon a rough translation: | Jan 20 11:40 |
| schestowitz | “The requirements resulting from the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court are currently generally met at EPC level. The complainant does not state nor is it otherwise apparent that this is clearly not the case here” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | “The legal protection system of the European Patent Convention essentially corresponds to that of the Basic Law and thus the standard of Article 24.1 of the Basic Law” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | “The members of the boards of appeal are factual, Art. 23 EPC, and personal, Art. 21 EPC, independent” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | “The procedure is committed to the rule of law. The complaints procedure is an independent procedure that is completely separate from the first instance procedure. Its task is to issue a judicial judgment on the accuracy of an earlier decision of the department of first instance that must be strictly separated from it” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | “On the basis of Art. 113 EPC, the Enlarged Board of Appeal and Boards of Appeal recognized procedural and organizational maxims for all administrative procedures before the European Patent Office, thus ensuring the rule of law of the procedures before the European Patent Office. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also guaranteed the independence of the first instance decision-makers and shaped the principles of the hearing, the right to be | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | heard and decision-making based on recognized principles of evidence” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | “The complainant does not state that legal protection against admission decisions generally and clearly falls below the level of legal protection required by the Basic Law” | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | It is fair to say that much has changed in the almost two decades that have passed since the BVerfG’s decision in the EQE case. The (organisational) independence of the Boards of Appeal is now disputed, based upon strong evidence and arguments. As illustrated by the Corcoran cases, Rule 28(2) EPC and G 3/19, the current President of the EPO, as well as the immediate past President and the AC, have contributed to the evidence by | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | blatantly subverting (or at least attempting to subvert) the independence of the Boards. | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | In the light of the new evidence and arguments, the EQE case does not shed any light upon the key question in the pending complaints regarding the EPO, namely whether the Boards of Appeal of the EPO provide basic legal protection comparable to the German constitution. Whilst it is possible that the BVerfG will reach the same conclusion on this point as beforehand, it seems to me that they would have a MUCH harder time justifying such a | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | conclusion on this occasion. | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 11:41 |
| schestowitz | Oh okay | Jan 20 12:25 |
| schestowitz | Unfortunately I'm new here, how are you doing? | Jan 20 12:25 |
| schestowitz | I'm well | Jan 20 12:25 |
| schestowitz | working this evening, trying to catch up with news | Jan 20 12:25 |
| schestowitz | before work | Jan 20 12:25 |
| schestowitz | That's pretty cool | Jan 20 12:25 |
| <--pedro4 has quit (Write error: Connection reset by peer) | Jan 20 12:27 | |
| -->pedro4 (sid145515@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xdajdpjtnwignmyz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 12:27 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Sheikh_al_Touar/status/1219227357443170305 | Jan 20 13:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@Sheikh_al_Touar: CRISPR Patents Disallowed, But Where Are the Journalists? #patents #CRISPR #Europe https://t.co/H4i9qJk1Ta | Jan 20 13:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | CRISPR Patents Disallowed, But Where Are the Journalists? | Techrights | Jan 20 13:19 | |
| <--schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 20 14:17 | |
| -->schestowitz (~roy@host81-154-169-2.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 14:18 | |
| <--schestowitz has quit (Changing host) | Jan 20 14:18 | |
| -->schestowitz (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 14:18 | |
| ---ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz | Jan 20 14:18 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/mitcoes/status/1219281081549172736 | Jan 20 15:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@mitcoes: https://t.co/1oJsGyIBWd @policia existen serios indicios, acuerdos o condenas EN TODO EL MUNDO porque funcionarios… https://t.co/waDyposE8P | Jan 20 15:33 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 15:33 |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/2020/01/08/microsoft-criminality/ … | Jan 20 15:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Microsoft Continues to Get Away With Serious Crimes Very Cheaply | Techrights | Jan 20 15:33 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@mitcoes: https://t.co/1oJsGyIBWd @policia existen serios indicios, acuerdos o condenas EN TODO EL MUNDO porque funcionarios… https://t.co/waDyposE8P | Jan 20 15:33 | |
| schestowitz | @policia existen serios indicios, acuerdos o condenas EN TODO EL MUNDO porque funcionarios públicos son sobornados por MS | Jan 20 15:33 |
| schestowitz | ¿Es en España distinto? | Jan 20 15:33 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 20 15:33 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/sarahabed84/status/1219238023424028673 | Jan 20 16:29 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@sarahabed84: @schestowitz Kassem’s is an unfortunate case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. https://t.co/WpPI71AklU | Jan 20 16:29 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> infobrics.org | One phone call from Trump to Sisi could’ve prevented Mustafa Kassem’s hunger strike death | Jan 20 16:29 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/TallElfin/status/1219203225821351936 | Jan 20 16:30 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@TallElfin: @schestowitz Oh he's a *nerd*, he's not a Geek. | Jan 20 16:30 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/TallElfin/status/1219195811831209984 | Jan 20 16:31 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@TallElfin: @schestowitz Love it. Use the hell out of it. | Jan 20 16:31 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/TallElfin/status/1219193112888782848 | Jan 20 16:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@TallElfin: @schestowitz I think it's important to point out that Uber Nerd is wearing black socks on the beach. | Jan 20 16:32 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/al1meister/status/1219189442994475008 | Jan 20 16:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@al1meister: @schestowitz I personally love this. | Jan 20 16:32 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/_jessewebb_/status/1219112646236102656 | Jan 20 16:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@_jessewebb_: @schestowitz @minds There was some bug that was causing a lot of users to get banned for "spam". I don't know if th… https://t.co/9h9Dvaq9Lt | Jan 20 16:32 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@_jessewebb_: @schestowitz @minds There was some bug that was causing a lot of users to get banned for "spam". I don't know if th… https://t.co/9h9Dvaq9Lt | Jan 20 16:32 | |
| schestowitz | "There was some bug that was causing a lot of users to get banned for "spam". I don't know if they ever fully sorted that out or not. Did you get your account restored? I know a few people that did get their account back after sending an e-mail to Minds Support." | Jan 20 16:32 |
| schestowitz | Yes, they unbanned me thrice now. I just don't understand why this happens in the first place. They alienate some of their bigger users whenever that happens. | Jan 20 16:33 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!