●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 ●● ● May 26 [05:12] *buzzert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [05:14] *buzzert (~buzzert@buzzert.net) has joined #boycottnovell ● May 26 [10:08] schestowitz two more days before the hearings start 'online'... any articles about patents for the novice reader before, during or shortly after that can get more people online 'involved'; EPO does NOT want people to watch this because the more people know, the more angry they become,. [10:28] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/05/20/g-1-21-we-have-a-new-chairman/#comments [10:28] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | G 1/21 - We have a new Chairman - Kluwer Patent Blog [10:28] schestowitz " [10:28] schestowitz Does an order made by the replaced chairman to hold oral proceedings as a video conference cease to have effect upon such replacement? [10:28] schestowitz Concerned observer [10:28] schestowitz MAY 20, 2021 AT 7:29 PM [10:28] schestowitz This really ought to be the case for all of the previous Chairmans decisions, not just the decision regarding the mode of oral proceedings. An individual who has been excluded on the grounds of a justified suspicion of partiality really ought to have no influence whatsoever on the proceedings. However, the previous Chairman has determined the composition of the (rest of) the EBA, the date of oral proceedings and the mode of oral [10:28] schestowitz proceedings. All of those decisions could prove to be highly influential with regard to the outcome of the proceedings (eg with the extremely short deadline for filing amicus briefs potentially having the effect of significantly reducing the number of briefs filed, as well as the amount of time and effort that could be dedicated to gathering supporting evidence, or otherwise making the arguments in the briefs as persuasive as [10:28] schestowitz possible). [10:28] schestowitz In conclusion, it seems to me that, strictly speaking, the slate should be wiped clean and the whole process started again with the first step being the selection of a new composition of the EBA by the new Chairman. However, I can see nothing in the interlocutory decision that indicates that the EBA is considering rescinding any of the decisions taken by the previous Chairman. [10:28] schestowitz Concerned observer [10:28] schestowitz MAY 20, 2021 AT 7:18 PM [10:28] schestowitz Not quite quick enough to make the EPO President pause for thought before extending (to 31 Jan 2022) the pilot program for VICOs in opposition. [10:28] schestowitz https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/president-notices/archive/20210520.html [10:28] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.epo.org | EPO - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 14 May 2021 concerning the further extension of the pilot project for oral proceedings by videoconference before opposition divisions [10:28] schestowitz The EBAs confirmation that water is wet (ie that the Chairman should be excluded on the grounds of suspected partiality) raises an important question about why the Chairman did not recuse himself from the entire proceedings. Did he really think that he might be able to continue? Sadly, I think that we can conclude that he probably did think this. This is because he appears to have made last-minute, token efforts towards an [10:28] schestowitz appearance of impartiality, namely he: [10:28] schestowitz refrained from presenting CA/5/21 or discussing the proposed amendment of the RPBA during the meeting of the Administrative Council on 23 March 2021 where the proposal for Article 15a was discussed; and [10:28] schestowitz did not make any comments, be it internally or publicly, on the referral G 1/21. [10:28] schestowitz This suggests to me either a lack of understanding of the legal principles underpinning the independence of the judiciary or, more likely, a desire to continue as Chair of the EBA despite the obvious problems of partiality (ie where he would be effectively deciding whether his own actions were in accordance with the EPC). Either way, this is not a good look for the President of the Boards of Appeal. [10:28] schestowitz Do not pull my leg! [10:28] schestowitz MAY 20, 2021 AT 7:39 PM [10:28] schestowitz The pressure had really become too great, but the job was only half done. Given the overwhelming evidence it was difficult for Mr J. to be retained. That Mr B was exchanged was as necessary as exchanging Mr J. [10:28] schestowitz To claim that the two members of the Presidium, Mrs R and Mr E, were only consulted and therefore cannot be suspected of bias is a mockery. [10:28] schestowitz It also remains that the sword of Damocles of non-reappointment as a member of the BA is a good instrument helping to flex some spines that should not be underestimated. [10:28] schestowitz I hope that the members of this EBA will have the courage to resist the pressure as those who dared resist the previous EPO President when he trampled on the separation of powers. [10:29] schestowitz We must not forget that the issue to be discussed goes far beyond the BA. [10:29] schestowitz It is the whole New Normal that Napoleons 4th worthy successor wants to establish that is at stake. [10:29] schestowitz Attentive Observer [10:29] schestowitz MAY 21, 2021 AT 3:58 AM [10:29] schestowitz I cannot but agree with Concerned Observer about the behaviour of the president of the BA in this whole affair. It is tragic to see a person having been a judge himself to behave as he did. Whatever the outcome of G1/21 will be, his authority will have been severely damaged. [10:29] schestowitz He should resign should he have some self respect. But would the BA would be better managed should Mr.B take over? [10:29] schestowitz Even the perception of independence of the BA has been shattered by now! A real independence has never existed. [10:29] schestowitz Lets hope that not only G 3/19 but also G 1/21 will be brought to the attention of the German Federal Constitutional Court when it will take a decision on the independence of the BA. [10:29] schestowitz The Convention watchdog [10:29] schestowitz MAY 21, 2021 AT 9:21 AM [10:29] schestowitz A straightforward decision which gives convincing reasons for a result unavoidable under established principles of the rule of law. However, it cannot do away with what has happened outside the referral proceedings. All those who are involved in the reappointment of the internal members of the EBA have made very clear what they expect the EBA to decide: the President of the Boards of Appeal, the President of the EPO, and not the [10:29] schestowitz least the Administrative Council by approving and thereby enacting Article 15a RPBA, notwithstanding the pending referral instead of waiting for the outcome of the referral and respecting the authority of the EBA. Another call for a for dynamic interpretation of the EPC? [10:29] schestowitz Concerned observer [10:29] schestowitz MAY 21, 2021 AT 11:57 AM [10:29] schestowitz Another curious aspect of the interlocutory decision is the discussion of the objections against X and Y (Eliasson and Ritzka). [10:29] schestowitz When faced with objections to his participation, Z (Beckedorf) voluntarily disclosed to the EBA information that had not previously been disclosed to the public (or at least not officially confirmed). That is, he disclosed his role in the drafting of a proposal for a provision that later became Article 15a RPBA and in presenting drafts for the proposal during discussions in the Presidium and with user representatives during [10:29] schestowitz the consultation phase. This was the correct thing to do, and led to the EBA excluding him from the proceedings. [10:29] schestowitz However, it seems that X and Y were perhaps not so forthcoming about their involvement in presenting drafts for the proposal during discussions with user representatives during the consultation phase (see Flopsy the bunnys comments at https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616068909443#c2902789645718470710). [10:29] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [10:29] schestowitz It also seems that X and Y were remarkably tight-lipped about the advice that, as members of the Presidium, they provided to the President of the Boards of Appeal in connection with proposed Article 15a RPBA. [10:29] schestowitz It is difficult to imagine that the information seemingly not disclosed by X and Y would have been irrelevant to the EBAs consideration of the objections to those members. Indeed, participation in discussions with user representatives was one of the grounds mentioned by the EBA in connection with the exclusion of Z. Further, if, in fact, the Presidium (including X and Y) supported the proposal to introduce Article 15a RPBA, would [10:29] schestowitz that not have been highly relevant to the question of whether they should be excluded? Indeed, would it not also be highly relevant if the Presidium did NOT support the proposal? As it is, it seems that X and Y have not been excluded simply on the grounds that information pertaining to possible grounds to suspect partiality has not been made public. [10:29] schestowitz Whilst it is perhaps possible that X and Y have indeed maintained a sufficiently impartial stance throughout this whole saga, it seems that the public will never know for sure whether this is indeed the case. It almost goes without saying that this is not an ideal outcome with regard to inspiring public confidence in the impartiality of the EBA. [10:29] schestowitz Legitimus [10:29] schestowitz MAY 21, 2021 AT 3:45 PM [10:29] schestowitz It would be nice to know how the individual members of the EBA in charge of this referral have been selected. One should assume that in the recent weeks and months the point at issue has been amply discussed internally of the Boards of Appeal, so that most members personal opinion might have been well known. Is there any mechanism in place to avoid any purposive selection of the members appointed in a case and if so, is it possible [10:29] schestowitz for outsiders to check whether it has been properly applied here? [10:29] schestowitz Straightforward decisions. [10:29] schestowitz MAY 23, 2021 AT 10:37 AM [10:29] schestowitz Hand selected by the VP3/PresofBoA. [10:29] schestowitz No. [10:29] schestowitz No. [10:29] schestowitz MaxDrei [10:29] schestowitz MAY 22, 2021 AT 11:43 AM [10:29] schestowitz Im not an attorney at law, just a mere patent attorney, and therefore I am not 100% clear on whether the issue of partiality is coterminous with the age-old and hallowed principle of nemo iudex (nobody should be judge in their own cause) which Thorsten recently so helpfully wrote to us about here: [10:29] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/05/11/a-few-more-thoughts-on-normality/ [10:29] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | A Few More Thoughts on Normality - Kluwer Patent Blog [10:29] schestowitz I found no mention of this principle anywhere in the wording of G1/21 of 17 May 2021. Might that be because it is too delicate to go anywhere near? Is partiality a convenient carpet under which to sweep the elephant currently stomping around the room? [10:29] schestowitz " ● May 26 [11:08] schestowitz [01:07] (23:50:49) thumbs: also, you should read up on two new appointed staffers: Eskimo and Bagira/Phanes [11:08] schestowitz [01:07] (00:05:04) thumbs: XRevan86: https://web.archive.org/web/20210523224209/https://phanes.silogroup.org/vae-victis/ [11:08] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-web.archive.org | Vae Victis! Phanes' Canon [11:08] schestowitz [01:07] (00:05:39) thumbs: that is phanes, and he ran a slandering campaigns for years, and threatened 5 of us personally, and doxed us [11:08] schestowitz [01:07] (00:05:53) thumbs: even issued death threats [11:09] schestowitz [01:16] (00:14:15) thumbs: Chris Punches accused John of using child pornography, out of retaliation [11:09] schestowitz [01:16] (00:14:23) thumbs: collecting, whatever [11:09] schestowitz [01:16] (00:15:12) thumbs: and this is the kind of staffer Andrew appoints [11:09] schestowitz [01:16] (00:16:35) thumbs: Eskimo wrote an irc client, iglooirc, which logged private messages and images shared, some with nudity, and publicly posted them [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] Eh.. forget the email, you did not get these from me: [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] Hired "Phanes" that performed "ritual defamation" on former freenode staff. [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27235803 [11:09] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | It is ritual defamation [1]. This has been apparently going on for quite some t... | Hacker News [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] https://web.archive.org/web/20210523224209/https://phanes.silogroup.org/vae-victis/ [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] ... [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] Also hired "eskimo" with questionable previous behaviour. [11:09] schestowitz [20:53] https://web.archive.org/web/20210524162546/https://old.reddit.com/r/irc/comments/d45jow/looking_to_sell_my_client_to_a_new_maintainer/ [11:09] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-web.archive.org | Looking to sell my client to a new maintainer. : irc [11:09] schestowitz [20:54] , /whois Phanes , /whois eskimo [11:09] schestowitz [20:55] .. /whois bagira[llf] .. not phanes ● May 26 [13:33] Techrights-sec2 This is as far as I have gotten so far before getting stuck: [13:33] Techrights-sec2 PO-overview-2021-05.txt [13:34] schestowitz lots of people read up epo wiki+articles this week [13:40] Techrights-sec2 One crucial problem is that it looks like there is no oversight on the EPO [13:40] Techrights-sec2 and that there is no EU institution which is assigned the role of managing [13:40] Techrights-sec2 and monitoring the EPO. [13:40] Techrights-sec2 The wiki is probably the mostusable way of navigating TR articles. [13:40] schestowitz for many purposes the wiki is not good, except maybe for stuff looking for the latest updates. The intro there is insufficient and targets not geeks. [13:41] Techrights-sec2 *staff [13:44] Techrights-sec2 spam: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/waiving-covid-19-vaccine-patents-won-t-get-shots-arms-ncna1268099 [13:44] Techrights-sec2 It looks like the mainstream media is trying to burn up their "quota" [13:44] Techrights-sec2 of patent- and tech-related news on propaganda and fluff so that [13:44] Techrights-sec2 there will be no space left to cover the important issues. [13:44] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.nbcnews.com | Waiving Covid-19 vaccine patents won't get shots in arms faster. It slows down new vaccines. [13:44] schestowitz Yes, I saw the same thing more of less one hour ago... in WSJ when looking for EPO news ● May 26 [14:16] Techrights-sec2 There is also this one, which might segue to EPO in the comments, [14:16] Techrights-sec2 https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=21/05/26/0514222 [14:16] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-soylentnews.org | Locking USPTO Patent Filings into Microsoft with DOCX - SoylentNews [14:21] schestowitz I have just added this in full to http://techrights.org/2021/05/25/microsoft-uspto/ [14:21] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | USPTO Promotes Microsoft Monopoly and Proprietary Software (Updated) | Techrights ● May 26 [16:48] schestowitz https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/25/22453222/microsoft-windows-next-generation-announcement-sun-valley-build-2021-keynote [16:48] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.theverge.com | Microsoft teases a next generation of Windows announcement very soon - The Verge ● May 26 [18:25] *schestowitz__ (~schestowi@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:9e47:addf:5b42:cd6d) has joined #boycottnovell [18:25] *schestowitz__ has quit (Changing host) [18:25] *schestowitz__ (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell [18:25] *ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz__ [18:29] *schestowitz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [18:39] *schestowitz__ is now known as schestowitz ● May 26 [19:16] *saint_dogbert (~phobos@unaffiliated/phobos-anomaly/x-6744724) has joined #boycottnovell [19:17] Techrights-sec2 https://nitter.cc/Beautyon_/status/1397533796682149895#m [19:17] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-nitter.cc | Beautyon (@Beautyon_): "Property rights give everyone absolute certainty. Without them, there is confusion, pointless destructive disputes and rancour and other nonsense. People making up rules as they go along is a recipe for disaster. History matters and people should learn it. http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/lee-side.pdf" | nitter ● May 26 [21:55] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [21:55] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell