(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| schestowitz | > Thanks, I’m basically trying to drive home the fact that most people in corporate America are insane. However I woke up this morning and realized that I didn’t point out many delusions among executives and obviously have to fix that. | Jan 30 01:17 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | > | Jan 30 01:17 |
| schestowitz | > As always, free free to re-publish anything that I publish. I’ll link you when it’s published and thanks again for the feedback. | Jan 30 01:17 |
| schestowitz | In two videos I made and published today in Techrights I mentioned you, albeit not by name. | Jan 30 01:17 |
| schestowitz | > Published/Attached. Have your way with it. Feel free to add more if you | Jan 30 01:18 |
| schestowitz | > noticed a prominent delusion that I overlooked. | Jan 30 01:18 |
| schestowitz | > goddamned medium. | Jan 30 01:39 |
| schestowitz | Microsoft and Google: Corporate Ethics and Profitable Delusions • sʇɥƃıɹɥɔǝʇ ⇨ http://techrights.org/2021/01/29/profitable-delusions/ | Jan 30 01:39 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Microsoft and Google: Corporate Ethics and Profitable Delusions | Techrights | Jan 30 01:40 | |
| schestowitz | Oddly enough, the original page lacks the twitter screenshot of the deluded man. I've grabbed it from the PDF. | Jan 30 01:40 |
| schestowitz | Attached. | Jan 30 01:40 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/25/upc-to-be-or-not-to-be/ | Jan 30 02:37 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | UPC: to be or not to be? - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jan 30 02:37 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 30 02:37 |
| schestowitz | Bad, bad authorities | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 5:20 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | “the German authorities are jeopardizing the UPC” | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Woha, are they? By checking its constitutionality? Really? | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | NordicObserver | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 6:11 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Without, in any way, prentending to be an expert on the UPC, I cannot understand the statement “the German authorities are jeopardizing the UPC”. Are the democratic processes not running their due course in Germany at the moment? Reform, perhaps, yes. But isn’t evaluation of the project by the BVerfG also a test, that, if passed may lend credibility to the project? And if not, may occasion reform. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Also I cannot see how pleading for “Paris as epicenter” turns the UPC in a “true” European Project? From the French perspective perhaps, from the perspective of the rest of Europe perhaps less so? | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 7:04 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | “We also must plead for Paris to be the epicenter of this jurisdiction. ” | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Sorry, but because of what exactly? So far Paris is not exactly known as an important venue for patent litigation. France does not even have a real patent office (in the sense of actually examining applications and having a large number of examiners). And why should the UPC be created in the “second largest market in the Europe”? Why not the largest? | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Yes, the UPCA should be completely reworked. No, the UPC should not be based in Paris. Rather it should be in Munich or The Hague, where there is already a critical mass of professionals (forget about market size, the market would after all be the participating countries). | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | To me, choosing court sites because of political reasons and according to practical reasons is emblematic for some of the failures in setting up the UPC. A “clean” and streamlined procedure and organization seem to have been goals with low priority. 🙁 | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | But I fear nobody will work on a “clean” solution. After all, it would mean creating an EU patent office (without the non-EU members of the EPC). And then setting up a court responsible for appeals against decisions of this EU patent office plus dealing with validity and infringement (possibly even with an administrative law section covering labour law for this office?). – I don’t expect to see this happening during my | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | professional life. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | In summary, it is not “the German authorities […] jeopardizing the UPC”. It was jeopardized by the “authorities” devising a bad agreement without caring for basic legal rules… | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 7:42 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Every lawyer considers his home jurisdiction to be the best. How could he not? The EPC has 38 Member States and presumably every patent lawyer in every one of them “yields to no man” in their contentions that their home jurisdiction is the best. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Hence it is no surprise to read now from a French correspondent that: | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | “France must take its place as European leader in the field of innovation” by having the seat of the UPC in Paris. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | The piece could have been drafted by the EPO’s immediate past President, Monsieur Battistelli, also a Frenchman, who, disgracefully, went as far as to cripple the EPO Appeals Directorate in order to give Paris a free run to establish itself as the maker of pan-European patent law. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | This all illustrates both the beauty and the ugliness of life within the EU. We have the beauty and elegance of the patentability provisions of the EPC and the economy and rigour of the EPC case law written at the EPO. And then we have the demeaning scrabbling for opportunities under the UPC to make pocketfuls of lovely money. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Until BREXIT, the UK used to be the Tie-breaker, between Germany and France. it is a tragedy, at least in patent law in Europe, that the UK has left the room. Frankly, for me, the Munich/London/Paris split of the UPC Seat was a plus point. Germany does engineering litigation well. English law fact-finding is good for chem/bio where each side might need to inspect the other side’s experimental evidence, and Paris would handle the | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | more intellectual (and hand-waving) “do it on the internet” sort of patent case. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Franco-belge | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 10:21 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Full support for the previous comments: constitutional review of laws is part of a democratic state. One can wonder why the BVerfG did not explicitly raise all its concerns in reaction to the first complaint. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Incidentally, the Hungarian Constitutional Court has also raised concerns: it seems convenient to forget it. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | The Benelux countries have a common court that applies national law (identical law passed in the three countries). Maybe this should have served as example. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | January 25, 2021 at 11:45 pm | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Dear Maître Dhenne, | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | Sorry but your claim for the UPC to be located in Paris is an old one, and previous commenter have clearly shown that this is vain and will certainly not help to insure the future of the UPC. | Jan 30 02:38 |
| schestowitz | It was the haggling between France, the UK and Germany which ended with a typical EU compromise, a bit for everyone. Nobody is pleased, but nobody can be completely displeased. And so we ended with Art 7(2) UPCA, and one of the actual stumbling blocks. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Do you really think that Paris alone will solve the problem? We are exactly at the same point we were when the decision to split it not in two but in three parts was taken. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | It is not the German authorities who are jeopardizing the UPC. The UPC was jeopardised from day 1 as it started with the wrong premises. In view of the low average number of validations in EU member states and of the low number of true multinational litigations, the UPC is as useless as a plaster on a wooden leg. A proper study of the pro’s and con’s and of the economic viability was never undertaken. That is also why we ended | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | up with an extraordinary level of procedural fees. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | The UPC has also been jeopardised by the bunch of internationally acting lawyer firms having pushed for the UPC which were sitting in the Drafting committee for the rules of procedure of the UPC. They, and the big industry, used SMEs as a fig leaf behind which they could act in all impunity and lured politicians, be it at national or at European level, into false hopes. At the moment they also have the support of an EU Commissioner | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | who is no more than a lobbyist. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | The large internationally active lawyer firms have soon realised that the UPC could even better fill their already deep pockets. The big industry helped them as they also realised pretty soon that with this system they could crush smaller entities. Why do you think that Poland or the Czech Republic do not want to join the UPC? | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | The decision of the founding fathers of the EPC to separate the grant from the use of the title has made impossible to bring the whole EP patent granting and litigation system under the EU. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | It is in my humble opinion impossible to combine an open convention, the EPC, with mechanisms of a closed convention, the UPCA. Reconciling those two entities is doomed to fail. That some academics want to have a purely EU grant and litigation system is certainly nice, but it would mean turning the wheel back to the mid-sixties of the last century. Forget it! | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | The few member states of the EU at the time have failed to reach an agreement. Do you think they would be more capable of doing so nowadays? It was the pressure of the PCT which forced Europeans to act. That the only input of the Commission and of the EU parliament in matters of European patents was to come up with the notion of “enhanced cooperation” says a lot. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Relaunching the UPC or something similar that “must be turned into a true European project” is illusory! And that Paris wants to lead the whole thing is at best preposterous, not to say ludicrous! | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | When you come up with an alleged historical role of France in patent matters you remind me of all the Brexiters who are hoping that the UK goes back to its past glory and power. At this rate Italy could go back to the Venetian patent act, and also claim the lead. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | The future of IP litigation in Europe lies with an enhanced cooperation of all judges dealing with patent validity and litigation in Europe, and not just limited to EU member states. Regularly bringing judges together can achieve more and at a much lower cost than any UPC of whatever kind. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Rather than fighting for something like the UPC it would be much better to fight in order to give the Boards of Appeal of the EPO their true independence and to be merely satisfied with an increased perception of their independence. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | If you fight for this I will be with you, but not for what you want at the moment, which is no more than a playground for lawyers wanting to increase their revenues. That some German judges (I have not hear about others, but cannot exclude it) complain about the money they lose due to a belated opening of the UPC is adding insult to injury. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | IPfrog | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 7:39 am | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Cocorico ! | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | @anonymous : Think about the after work situation in The Hague and the food in Munich and give it a second thought 🙂 | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 9:05 am | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | As was commented previously, the hold up of the German ratification as a result of the complaint to the FCC is effectively impeding the will of the people. As such, there is every reason for the complaints to be made public as opposed to the current “behind closed doors” procedure. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Establishing a central court in a EU country which is not high on the list of favored states for litigating IP would make sense (maybe one of the eastern states?). Otherwise there will always be the impression that the court has only been establsihed to favor one’s friends in the system. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 11:23 am | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Adopting a EU patent enforcement directive to harmonize patent infringement cases in all EU member states and creating an IP section at the CJEU would solve all issues and make the UPC completely useless. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Bergamo | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 11:39 am | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Noteworthy seems the author’s repeated reference to “we” in this piece. Would the author mind telling the readers who “we” is? The group of people with vested interests conspiring – in the truest sense of the word – to ram down the public’s throat an unlawful project for the profit of a selected few and to the detriment of many? | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 1:58 pm | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | If the UPC is to be reformed, which I believe is absolutely necessary, then amendment of the UPC Agreement would be the first (essential) step. However, that Agreement cannot be amended unless and until it enters into force. Therefore, “reforming” the UPC project necessarily means building an entirely new project, including new EU Regulations to replace those that are inextricably tied to the current UPC Agreement. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | This means that, with regard to reform of the UPC project, the decision is between wholesale reform or nothing at all. There is no guarantee that a new UPC project would clear all of the same hurdles that have been cleared by the current project. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the pro-UPC lobbyists have put their entire weight behind the option of no reform at all. However, by rights (ie under any sensible interpretation of the | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | provisions of the Vienna Convention), that option ought to be pushing up the daisies alongside the fabled Norwegian Blue. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Conclusion: do not expect the UPC’s strongest supporters to give up flogging the current horse unless and until the FCC delivers a second opinion upon its evident demise. | Jan 30 02:39 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | French citizen | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 2:15 pm | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | It is always interesting to see that centralization appears to be the best solution when the claimed central point is at the home of the one advocating for it, while it is the worse practice when the central point is located abroad, in the UPC case even only decentralized… I am a French citizen and prefer decentralized courts where every member can contribute its own views and perspectives. Diversity of views is always better than | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | silo thinking | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Jan Verbist | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 26, 2021 at 6:53 pm | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | “A proper study of the pro’s and con’s and of the economic viability was never undertaken. That is also why we ended up with an extraordinary level of procedural fees.” | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | The only “economic” justification on the UPC dates from … 2009, for a treaty signed in 2012, and when the court fees of 2016 were not even known! | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Extraneous Attorney | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 7:10 am | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Taking a broader perspective, one may even wonder why any court ought to be financed only by the fees paid by the parties. Equitable, reasoned, and timely judicial adjudication of disputes, after all, benefits even non-parties to any given case, and the public in general. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Accordingly, it is not outrageous that the states contribute to the operating costs of the courts exercising the judicial power in their name. In fact, considering that high court fees may deter some parties from asserting all their rights, it is a very reasonable position. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | In this context, the fees resulting from the requirement that the UPC be “self-financed” are not simply high. They are outrageously high. Requiring that a party pay more than ten thousand euros just to file a counterclaim for nullity will deter many alleged infringers from even trying to defend their case! | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | And as an exercise, I would suggest that one try to tell, for instance, a US federal judge that the fee for filing a civil action in their jurisdiction ought to be set above ten thousand dollars… | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Wouter Ohrenstein | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 8:38 am | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Before I forget, can I please emphasize the following: | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | The suspension of the ratification proceedings impedes the clear will of the people as clearly expressed in several votes by the German Parliament, in which the legislation was approved by a large majority. This suspension clearly violates the very core of democracy. This cannot be, for, as a wise man has recently stated: “Ultimately, at a constitutional level, the will of the people still comes first.” | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Also, the fact that this suspension has been concocted in a private phone call between the Federal President and the FCC is an outrageous violation of transparency and the public’s god-given right to know whatever it wishes (with the exception, of course, when my interests are affected which self-evidently excludes any transparency from the outset). | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Moreover, the FCC is not even allowed to grant an interim order against the Federal President as this is only possible against existing laws (and don’t look into sec. 32 BVerfGG, there’s nothing to see there). | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Further, please note that the first constitutional complaint was only upheld partially and on formal grounds and with the closest possible vote of 5:3 judges and expect the new complaints to be thrown out imminently as obviously inadmissible and/or obviously unfounded, since the arguments asserted are exactly the same that were rejected in the first complaint already. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | So those of you also deeply invested in making the unlawful UPC scam a reality and contribute to our financial common good, please don’t worry. The phoenix will once again rise from the ashes and we will get there eventually, whatever it takes and regardless of the consequences for society at large. Our common good will prevail. It always has. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | /irony off | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 12:40 pm | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Please do not waste your irony on the pro-UPC lobbyists. It will have no effect upon them. All they need is to find an argument that they can PRETEND is plausible, and to then use that as an excuse for asserting that everything in UPC world is perfectly in order. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | If you need an example of how implausible legal arguments can be wheeled out as part of a strategy of avoiding engaging with substantive issues, then look no further than the assertions of unconstitutionality now being made across the pond. It comes from the same playbook: just simply find some legal “expert” who is prepared to stand behind whatever ludicrous and nonsensical interpretation of the law suits your purposes and | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | then argue long and hard that you are merely upholding important legal principles by taking a stand against common sense. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Kevin Nasenstein | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 12:40 pm | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Very well said, Wouter. The phoenix will once again rise from the ashes and all our efforts will pay off in the end! Ultimately, this is for our common good, what could be wrong with that?! Transparency and democracy will win. | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Winfried Zahnstein | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 1:08 pm | Jan 30 02:40 |
| schestowitz | Thank you for this, brother. Hail phoenix! Btw, don’t you have further shills bots at hand who could populate the patent blogs and leave nonsense comments under UPC posts to divert the attention of the readers away from the questions that really matter? Most of the more versed UPC critics appear to slowly wake up to our brilliantly thought-out plan, even daring to increasingly doubt our non-existent honesty. Just send more | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | shills over to post more nonsense and bury the mindful and well-formulated comments by UPC critics in BS, making it more difficult for the uninformed to find out about the true issues. After all, what are we paying all these associates for?! I’m totally with you, our common good will prevail! | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 9:02 am | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | If the members of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat would have been properly informed and the real problems facing the UPC taken into account -supremacy of Union Law-status of the London Section- then I would accept that the will of the people has been effectively impeded by the attitude of the GFCC. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | The first topic was ignored and the second belittled as the interpretation given in the explanatory note to the new ratification bill is in manifest contradiction with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. I do not expect that all members of the legislative are aware of all details, but the information given to them has to be neutral and factual. This was not the case. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | When you look at said explanatory note, which was actually written by heavy pro-UPC lobbyists, the manifest conclusion is that will of the people has been willingly misled, so that the intervention of the GFCC has to be welcomed. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | From the beginning the pro-UPC lobbyists wanted the UPC to come into force as quickly as possible in order to obtain a kind of fait accompli. By pushing it through at any cost and at any rate they hoped that no jurisdiction would dare putting the carefully set up money machine into jeopardy. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Brexit was a first blow to this hope, and the first complaint before the GFCC a second one. How often have we heard that the complaint will be dismissed at once as the complaint had no merit? The same record is playing again with the second one. Dear lobbyists, it is getting tiring to hear again the same tune. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | By keeping flogging the dead UPC horse pro-UPC lobbyists still show that they have not given up their hope of the big buck. Hope dies last, but in the present situation, pro-UPC lobbyists are becoming a pain. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Trying to locate the UPC in one of the eastern states is a nice idea, but rather naive. The problem is that the present text of the UPCA says something quite different. And on top of it the Czech Republic and Poland have declined to ratify the UPC. In Hungary there are constitutional problems, and the UPC cannot be ratified without an amendment to the constitution. Where else should it then be located in Easter Europe? | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | When on top one sees how those countries want to get the money from the EU, but try as much as possible not to abide with fundamental values like free speech and independence of justice, it can only lead to hair raising. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 9:25 am | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Good comments from Extraneous, but could somebody tell me what is the fee set by the USPTO to entertain a Request for review of the validity of a patent duly issued by that Office. It also is of the order of EUR 10,000, is it not? If so, is that not even more scandalous? | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Extraneous Attorney | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 11:55 am | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Per the USPTO fee schedule, the Inter partes review request fee is 19,000 USD for up to 20 claims, and an additional 375 USD for each claim in excess to 20. And there are no reductions for small and micro entities! | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | It is worth noting that the USPTO describes itself as… “a fully fee-funded agency”. See, e.g.: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budget-and-financial-information | Jan 30 02:41 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.uspto.gov | Budget and Financial Information | USPTO | Jan 30 02:41 | |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 10:42 am | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Not only art. 7(2) UPCA is an issue but also art. 19(1) and art. 35(1), for the same reasons. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | It was not smart (euphemism) to locate divisions of the UPC in specific states and not to require the ratification of these states for the entry into force of the UPCA. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | January 27, 2021 at 3:41 pm | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | The discussion about the height of the fees is distracting from the real issues. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | I do not care what the fees are in the US, what matters is the fee level here in Europe. And at the UPC it is extortionate to say the least. SMEs have repeatedly said that the fees are much too high for them. They hardly have the funds to file European applications, and even less when it comes to defend themselves. The ceiling on the recoverable costs are not a safety net they can rely on. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | It is not uncommon, and I have seen it many times, that big industry either buys applications from SMEs just to put them in a cupboard, or inundate them with a series of legal challenges so that in the end they cannot afford them and go bankrupt. For any patents left, they cannot any longer afford annual fees so that they even have the patents for free. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | In spite of the fiercest proponent of the UPC say, the UPC is not for SMEs, and even the present blogger agrees with it. The UPC is a machinery set up in order to crush SMEs by big industry helped by wilful lawyers which can at the same time make the big buck. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | When it comes to Art 19(1), i.e. to Hungary, the ratification of the UPC is far from being at the door as there are constitutional problems. When it comes to Art 35(1), Portugal has ratified, against the clear message from the local representatives considering that it was damageable to local industries. Guess who was the head of the PPTO for quite a while? I have not heard for a long time that that Slovenia was making any attempt to | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | ratify. | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | May be Mr Tilmann and his friends will explain to us that, should those countries not have ratified the UPCA before the UPC could come into action, the duties foreseen to be located in Budapest and Ljubljana could be temporarily transferred to other locations, for instance Paris and Munich. This would then allow to decide on a proper location later, for instance at the first amendment of the UPC. Seeing how far their intellectual | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | flexibility can go when it comes to defend their private interests, I would not put it past them! | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 30 02:41 |
| schestowitz | https://gatesofvienna.net/2021/01/the-facebook-spring-in-egypt/ | Jan 30 09:05 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-gatesofvienna.net | The Facebook Spring in Egypt | Gates of Vienna | Jan 30 09:05 | |
| *liberty_box_ (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 13:49 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jan 30 13:58 | |
| *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jan 30 13:58 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jan 30 13:58 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:03 | |
| *liberty_box_ (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:04 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:04 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Client Quit) | Jan 30 14:06 | |
| *liberty_box_ has quit (Client Quit) | Jan 30 14:06 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:07 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 30 14:08 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:09 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box__ | Jan 30 14:09 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jan 30 14:19 | |
| *libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jan 30 14:19 | |
| *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Jan 30 14:19 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:27 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box__ | Jan 30 14:27 | |
| *Techrights-sec (~quassel@host81-154-168-60.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:27 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:9ed2:1eff:feb6:a8e1) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 14:28 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354943902688677902 | Jan 30 16:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: .@sallyKP “Philanthropic Racism” (Clinical Trials/Experimentation on Live Subjects and Ethnic Cleaning as 'Public… https://t.co/GFJobeGU1D | Jan 30 16:15 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354942853806481417 | Jan 30 16:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Even the Mainstream/Corporate Media is Trying to Study Why (or If) Bill Gates and Epstein's Sex Abuse Ring Were Clo… https://t.co/rfWsekaCiT | Jan 30 16:15 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Even the Mainstream/Corporate Media is Trying to Study Why (or If) Bill Gates and Epstein's Sex Abuse Ring Were Clo… https://t.co/rfWsekaCiT | Jan 30 16:15 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354942622750691337 | Jan 30 16:15 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Whistleblower Aid Already Showed Cover-up of Bill Gates 'Contributions' to MIT https://t.co/G5A89YZUBB | Jan 30 16:15 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Whistleblower Aid Already Showed Cover-up of Bill Gates ‘Contributions’ to MIT | Techrights | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354942459172823049 | Jan 30 16:16 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Always Look for Stories the Media is Suppressing and Hiding https://t.co/zyEOvdOkVp | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Always Look for Stories the Media is Suppressing and Hiding | Techrights | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354942289307643907 | Jan 30 16:16 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Identified Some of the Children in the Pornographic… https://t.co/1HJ7gOwgwI | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Identified Some of the Children in the Pornographic… https://t.co/1HJ7gOwgwI | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| schestowitz | "The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) Identified Some of the Children in the Pornographic 'Stash' of Bill Gates' Engineer" | Jan 30 16:16 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354942107513982978 | Jan 30 16:16 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: No Prison for Pre-Teen Child Rape Collections When You Work for Bill Gates? https://t.co/s63eb7ER6f | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | No Prison for Pre-Teen Child Rape Collections When You Work for Bill Gates? | Techrights | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354941777929793538 | Jan 30 16:16 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Former Microsoft Employee Explains the Deception, Lies, and 'Philanthropy' of Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein https://t.co/M5N9YEtd4g | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Former Microsoft Employee Explains the Deception, Lies, and ‘Philanthropy’ of Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein | Techrights | Jan 30 16:16 | |
| schestowitz | ""Former Microsoft Employee Explains the Deception, Lies, and 'Philanthropy' of Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein" | Jan 30 16:16 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354941583360192514 | Jan 30 16:17 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: The Deeds and Misdeeds of Bill Gates Have International Impact https://t.co/Vc2CF7gH1l | Jan 30 16:17 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | The Deeds and Misdeeds of Bill Gates Have International Impact | Techrights | Jan 30 16:17 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354941161866194954 | Jan 30 16:18 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: A New Tim Schwab Investigative Report on Bill Gates' Bribery of the Media and Beyond (for Hagiographies and Salesma… https://t.co/lbFnR6PJj8 | Jan 30 16:18 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: A New Tim Schwab Investigative Report on Bill Gates' Bribery of the Media and Beyond (for Hagiographies and Salesma… https://t.co/lbFnR6PJj8 | Jan 30 16:18 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 30 16:18 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 30 16:18 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box__ | Jan 30 16:18 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354941010984505349 | Jan 30 16:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Techrights Needs Help From American Readers (in Order to Retrieve the Court Documents Regarding Bill Gates' Enginee… https://t.co/A3XBjE700y | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Techrights Needs Help From American Readers (in Order to Retrieve the Court Documents Regarding Bill Gates' Enginee… https://t.co/A3XBjE700y | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354940783040868369 | Jan 30 16:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Detectives Found That Bill Gates' Engineer Took Photos of Latino Boys at the Beach. His Child Pornography Files Inc… https://t.co/ojAbZMl5e1 | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Detectives Found That Bill Gates' Engineer Took Photos of Latino Boys at the Beach. His Child Pornography Files Inc… https://t.co/ojAbZMl5e1 | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354940469663379458 | Jan 30 16:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Melinda and Zoophilia Found in Tandem in the Illegal Pornographic 'Stash' of Bill Gates' Engineer https://t.co/w37ONtiQ8c | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Melinda and Zoophilia Found in Tandem in the Illegal Pornographic ‘Stash’ of Bill Gates’ Engineer | Techrights | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354940241417789442 | Jan 30 16:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Bill Gates Lied to Mainstream Media About His Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein https://t.co/62Q2ST1AM8 | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | Bill Gates Lied to Mainstream Media About His Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein | Techrights | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354940040527417349 | Jan 30 16:19 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: The Pandemic Has Been Hugely Profitable for Bill Gates and It Helps Distract From His Epstein Mystery https://t.co/46sQdedTP2 | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | The Pandemic Has Been Hugely Profitable for Bill Gates and It Helps Distract From His Epstein Mystery | Techrights | Jan 30 16:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354939216808079365 | Jan 30 16:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Speaking Through Spokespeople is a Sign of Weakness, Such as Non-Denying and False Denials (or: Bill Gates Never De… https://t.co/Jn5ErdsoV6 | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Speaking Through Spokespeople is a Sign of Weakness, Such as Non-Denying and False Denials (or: Bill Gates Never De… https://t.co/Jn5ErdsoV6 | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| schestowitz | "Speaking Through Spokespeople is a Sign of Weakness, Such as Non-Denying and False Denials (or: Bill Gates Never Denied His Connections to MIT Through Jeffrey Epstein)" | Jan 30 16:20 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354938825345277965 | Jan 30 16:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Conspiracy Theories Have Successfully Distracted From Perfectly Legitimate and Real Scandals of Bill Gates in India… https://t.co/tC5n8QZorc | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Conspiracy Theories Have Successfully Distracted From Perfectly Legitimate and Real Scandals of Bill Gates in India… https://t.co/tC5n8QZorc | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| schestowitz | "Conspiracy Theories Have Successfully Distracted From Perfectly Legitimate and Real Scandals of Bill Gates in India, the Fertile Ground for Unethical Mass Experimentation on Humans" | Jan 30 16:20 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UCheckItOut/status/1354938018658967558 | Jan 30 16:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Latest Tim Schwab Investigative Report on Bill Gates Explores His Latest Vaccine Profiteering Drive Bill Gates has… https://t.co/2YfELmlhtR | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@UCheckItOut: Latest Tim Schwab Investigative Report on Bill Gates Explores His Latest Vaccine Profiteering Drive Bill Gates has… https://t.co/2YfELmlhtR | Jan 30 16:20 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 30 16:20 |
| schestowitz | Latest Tim Schwab Investigative Report on Bill Gates Explores His Latest Vaccine Profiteering Drive | Jan 30 16:20 |
| schestowitz | Bill Gates has apparently not bribed Schwab’s publisher… yet | Jan 30 16:20 |
| schestowitz | " | Jan 30 16:20 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.