Join us now at the IRC channel.
| -->TechBytesBot (~b0t@199.19.78.19) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 02:02 | |
| TechBytesBot | Hello World! I'm TechBytesBot running phIRCe v0.75 | Nov 16 02:02 |
|---|---|---|
| -->MrGreenFriend_ (~MrGreenFr@gateway/tor-sasl/mrgreenfriend) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 02:13 | |
| <--r_schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 16 02:32 | |
| -->schestowitz (~roy@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 02:33 | |
| <--MrGreenFriend_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 16 04:03 | |
| -->MrGreenFriend_ (~MrGreenFr@gateway/tor-sasl/mrgreenfriend) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 05:54 | |
| schestowitz | [For you only: you find all the judgments on the Tribunal's pages, by typing the number in triblex: | Nov 16 06:08 |
| schestowitz | https://www.ilo.org/dyn/triblex/triblexmain.advancedSearch?p_lang=en | Nov 16 06:08 |
| schestowitz | Please feel free to slightly re-phrase my sentences above, and please do not quote me personally for this, as this is mainly general and factual information which you can check yourself, if you like, by means of the Tribunal's db triblex. It weakens the statement, if it is presented as my own opinion only.] | Nov 16 06:08 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.ilo.org | ILO Administrative Tribunal | Nov 16 06:08 | |
| <--MrGreenFriend_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 16 06:22 | |
| schestowitz | "See here below also: As far as the referrals of cases to the EPO for "re-running" the internal appeals are concerned, these issues refer to the functioning of the EPO's juridical system rather in general, not just to my own cases." | Nov 16 07:42 |
| schestowitz | "But, as my cases AT 5-4532 and AT 5-4384 concern very serious issues (AT 5-4532: refusal of an employment medical examination in case of occupational disease; AT 5-4384: irregular dismissal - see my tweets with the parties' latest replies in re AT 5-4532), I could potentially be hit very hard by any flaws of this system." | Nov 16 07:43 |
| <--oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Nov 16 08:24 | |
| -->oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 08:24 | |
| <--Condor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 16 12:41 | |
| -->Condor (~freenode@e2.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 12:44 | |
| <--Condor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 16 13:04 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/01/ingve-stjerna-examination-compatibility-upca-with-german-and-eu-law-was-deficient/ | Nov 16 15:39 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 16 15:39 |
| schestowitz | One can only be thankful to Mr Stjerna to have had the guts to say no to an agreement which in the end was set up by and for the benefit of a small number of big international lawyer firms presently engaged in multinational litigation. The UPC is a prime example how lobbying intervenes in the legal sector. | Nov 16 15:39 |
| schestowitz | There are a lot of constitutional problems, not only in Germany, but in all the member states. | Nov 16 15:39 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Ingve Stjerna: Examination compatibility UPCA with German and EU law was deficient - Kluwer Patent Blog | Nov 16 15:39 | |
| schestowitz | That the Administrative Committee of the UPC should be able to amend the UPC Statute in a way which squeezes out national parliaments has been demonstrated by statements of members of those firms claiming that in case of Brexit, provided UK has ratified before Brexit, it could stay as member of the UPC. | Nov 16 15:39 |
| schestowitz | All the haste to bring the UPC into force as soon as possible is explained by the desire to establish a fait accompli after which it would no longer be possible to go back. | Nov 16 15:39 |
| schestowitz | The UPC rules of procedure were concocted by a select committee whose members co-opted each other. There have brought in new ways of interacting on the legal level without the parliaments being even aware of it. I think for example of the forced intervention, which boils down to the fact that a judgement of the UPC can be applied to a third party who did not participate in the dispute. I doubt this is constitutional in lot of member states. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | If the UPC is so compliant with EU law, why was it avoided at any costs to ask for an opinion of the CJEU like it was the case for EPLA? | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | The judges removed from office by the Presidium have no means of redress, cf. Art 10 of the statute. Which can as said be amended by the Administrative Committee, although it meant to be part of the Agreement. Renewal of judges is also not a token of independence. Will renewal be conditioned by a given performance, whatever one understands under this heading, like for the members of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO? | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Have the members of Parliaments in all member states having ratified really looked at what they ratified? Strong doubts are permitted. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | When one looks at the economic consequences of the UPC, they are abundantly clear. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | When barely a third of European patent applications stem from members states of the EU, who will primarily benefit from them? Mostly non-European litigants. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Which industries need a patent in all member states of the UPC? The fingers of one hand are more than ample. One should simply look at the average validations of European patents. My guess is between 5 and 7 at most. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | As far as European SMEs are concerned, the member of a big litigation lawyer firm has conceded in this blog that the UPC is not made for SMEs, in spite of all the pseudo studies issued by the EPO on this topic. We know by now, that those studies are not worth the paper they are printed on. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | It is just a mere detail that the quorum for ratification has apparently not been reached when the UPC was ratified by the German parliament. There are plenty other reasons, much more important than this one, which should lead to the UPC not being ratified to come into force. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | After Brexit, the removal of London as seat of a part of the central division in the Agreement itself should also not be left the Administrative Committee. It needs to reopen the negotiations and a new round of ratifications. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | That some members of the legal profession wanted to set up a lucrative playground for their firms explains the vehement way they defend the UPC and want it at any rate and at any cost. It is good that Brexit and then the constitutional complaint disturbed this well organised lobbying action. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Techrights: FINGERS OFF!! Directly or indirectly, for instance by mere global referral to this blog. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Russell Barton | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 4, 2019 AT 12:02 PM | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | @attentiveobserver | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | “That the Administrative Committee of the UPC should be able to amend the UPC Statute in a way which squeezes out national parliaments has been demonstrated by statements of members of those firms claiming that in case of Brexit, provided UK has ratified before Brexit, it could stay as member of the UPC” | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | It does not demonstrate that. Art 87(2) provides “The Administrative Committee may amend this Agreement to bring it into line with an international treaty relating to patents or Union law” and so the power as to the substance of such amendments is with those deciding international treaties (inc national parliaments) and Union Law (inc at least the European parliament) not the Administrative Council. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | In regard to Brexit, the suggestion is that the UK remaining in the UPC could be agreed in the withdrawal agreement and/or agreements/treaties on the future relationship between the UK and EU that are in place before the end of transitional period. That would allow the Administrative Council to make any needed changes to the UPCA to implement such legally binding agreement between the UK and EU27. National governments would not be squeezed | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | out- they would have their conventional role in ratifying (or not ratifying) such underlying legal agreement. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | The Convention watchdog | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 5, 2019 AT 10:00 AM | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | The Withdrawal Agreement is a matter of EU law, whereas the powers of the Administrative Committee of the UPC are a matter of International Treaty law. The Member States of the UPC Agreement and the EU are not identical. Therefore, the Parliaments of the EU Member States cannot replace the Parliaments of the UPCA Member States. Besides that, it appears as a legal absurdity to misuse a provision for amending an existing Treaty for bringing a | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | not yet existing Treaty to life. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 5, 2019 AT 5:45 PM | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Dear Mr Barton, | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | My apologies for brushing over Art 87 UPCA. According to Art 87(2) UPCA, the Administrative Committee may indeed amend the UPCA to bring it into line with an international treaty relating to patents or Union law. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Art 87(3) provides the possibility for a member state not to agree with an amended UPCA, upon which a Review Conference of the Contracting Member States shall be convened. This means a diplomatic conference has to be summoned to amend the UPC. The question is thus who will decide whether or not it agrees with an amended UPCA. Primarily, it will be the Government of a member state who will decide. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | If the government agrees with the amendment and accepts the new version of the UPCA, it will have an immediate effect in that member state. We could thus have the situation in which a revised international treaty enters into force for a member state without consultation of the parliament when the UPC is merely brought in line with an international treaty relating to patents. As a general rule, governments sign treaties and parliaments ratify | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | them. Without ratification they cannot be part and be above national legislation. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | If the amendment is to bring the UPCA in line with Union law, one can suppose that at least the European Parliament will have been consulted. It will thus remain to the government to incorporate the new union law in the national legislation, and thus most likely it will have to consult the parliament. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Nevertheless, Art 87 has been set up in order to make amendments easier, and I should thus not say that governments might be squeezed out, but rather the parliament may be squeezed out, depending on the decision of a government. On a constitutional level, this might pose a series of problems. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | As for the present UK government and for any possible future government not wanting to accept decisions of the CJEU, any agreement keeping UK in the UPC after Brexit is mere wishful thinking. We have in any case to wait until after December 12th to see further in this respect. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | As the German government has made clear that, independently of the decision of the German Federal Court, it might not ratify the UPCA before the end of the Brexit saga, any conjectures about the stay of a post Brexit UK are not useful. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Techrights: FINGERS OFF!!! | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Lucky Luke | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 6, 2019 AT 7:38 AM | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | Honestly, I do not see the BVerfG decide the UPC complaint ‘in the coming months’. They will sit back and watch how the Brexit saga turns out. Only if and when this is ultimately resolved (whenever that is and in whatever way), will they proceed with the case. Everything else would be asking for new trouble under constitutional law. | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 16 15:40 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Sheikh_al_Touar/status/1195751040680955904 | Nov 16 17:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Sheikh_al_Touar: Understanding Thierry Breton: Moral Responsibility for “a Capitalism That Kills”? #ThierryBreton #patents #France… https://t.co/MBBzsyR4Io | Nov 16 17:17 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Sheikh_al_Touar: Understanding Thierry Breton: Moral Responsibility for “a Capitalism That Kills”? #ThierryBreton #patents #France… https://t.co/MBBzsyR4Io | Nov 16 17:17 | |
| schestowitz | "Understanding Thierry Breton: Moral Responsibility for “a Capitalism That Kills”? #ThierryBreton #patents #France #politics #Politique #Europe #capitalism" | Nov 16 17:17 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/Sheikh_al_Touar/status/1195750023004381184 | Nov 16 17:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Sheikh_al_Touar: Understanding Thierry Breton: Toxic Management Goes on Trial in France #ThierryBreton #patents #France #politics… https://t.co/0Yuc03osGB | Nov 16 17:18 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Sheikh_al_Touar: Understanding Thierry Breton: Toxic Management Goes on Trial in France #ThierryBreton #patents #France #politics… https://t.co/0Yuc03osGB | Nov 16 17:18 | |
| schestowitz | "Understanding Thierry Breton: Toxic Management Goes on Trial in France #ThierryBreton #patents #France #politics #Politique #didierlombard #courtroom #Europe" | Nov 16 17:18 |
| -->Condor (~freenode@e2.nixmagic.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 17:31 | |
| <--TechBytesBot has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Nov 16 20:00 | |
| -->rianne (~liberty@host81-152-236-181.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 20:15 | |
| <--rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) | Nov 16 20:18 | |
| <--pedro4 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Nov 16 23:22 | |
| -->pedro4 (~pedro4@213.152.161.25) has joined #techbytes | Nov 16 23:40 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!