(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| schestowitz | "Support for the Raspberry Pi 400 will be added into the mainline Linux kernel with the upcoming 5.14 release. And, subsequently, Raspberry Pi 400 support should be available on any Linux distro based on the mainline kernel." | Jun 17 01:17 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | https://www.fosslife.org/raspberry-pi-400-support-coming-linux-kernel | Jun 17 01:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fosslife.org | Raspberry Pi 400 Support Coming to Linux Kernel | Jun 17 01:17 | |
| *psydroid (~psydroid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jun 17 02:12 | |
| *psydroid (~psydroid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 02:12 | |
| *arbition (~arbition@c9qzztust5hj4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 06:16 | |
| *arbition (~arbition@c9qzztust5hj4.irc) has left #techbytes (WeeChat 3.0.1) | Jun 17 06:16 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jun 17 06:22 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@usd2bagfexha4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 14:09 | |
| *spazz (~spazz@urifce6zxwtdi.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 16:34 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jun 17 17:29 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@4ejjjsb329z82.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 17:37 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone has quit (Quit: Quit) | Jun 17 17:44 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@4ejjjsb329z82.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 17:45 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone has quit (Quit: Quit) | Jun 17 17:45 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/11/kevin-mooney-new-years-of-delay-for-unified-patent-court-unlikely/#comments | Jun 17 17:45 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Kevin Mooney: ‘New years of delay for Unified Patent Court unlikely’ - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 17 17:45 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Supertramp — Dreamer, was the first thing that came to my mind… | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | And on which basis does he believe the complaints will be dismissed? | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Last time, the only decision that has been taken, was about not meeting the formal requirement during the parliamentary vote when transferring sovereign rights. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | But there were negative and dubious comments about the other merits in the decision already. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Andre Winterberg | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | June 11, 2021 at 4:24 pm | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | The complainants should update their complaints: | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/2020/12/03/epo-upc-fraudlinger/ | Jun 17 17:45 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | [Mail] Reader’s Comment on ‘Fraudlinger’ | Techrights | Jun 17 17:45 | |
| schestowitz | The UPC will keep SMEs at bay with its high costs (20.000EUR if you want to defend yourself, and invalidate the patent of a troll or a competitor). That’s the reason why Czech Republic is not ratitying any time soon, court fees for a simple case in Czech Republic is 80EUR. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Mdme Frohlinger decided to recycle the old Impact Assessment of 2009 to hide the controversial “self-financed” aspect of the UPC (which the UPLS of 2009 was not), which explains why the UPC court fees are so high for SMEs. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Art 36.3 of the UPCA with a court that seeks to be “self-financed” is destroying the integrity of the justice system, as judges will apply “patent maximalism” to be able to have a salary. There is a reason why courts in the different member states are not “self-financed”. Courts are not companies with financial targets. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | Andre Winterberg | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 5:13 pm | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | On Mercosur and the recycling of Impact Assessment, you can read through the lines that the Commission was relunctant to recommission a new impact assessment. I guess if there are no fines or sanctions attached to it, they do whatever they want. | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | A. Rebentisch | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | June 11, 2021 at 4:39 pm | Jun 17 17:45 |
| schestowitz | The phrase “European harmonisation” refers to a specific process that would be achieved by a European substantive patent law directive with an aim to harmonise the patent law of member states. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | The elephant in the room is why this has not been tried. Why we still have 27 unharmonised patent laws. We harmonised patent law for biological matters in the EU, that is all. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Neither new specialised Courts nor the EPO board of appeal or administrative practice nor WTO and trade treaties are a process for “European harmonisation” of patent law. If any, the Unified Court is just “enhanced cooperation” of EU member states. With the UK gone, it seems unwise not to try a genuine EU patent court as envisage in the EU treaties instead of the Unitary Court. Such a Court would not require diplomatic conferences, | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | treaties and ratifications but the simple use of the ordinary legislative process of the EU. In other words, a true EU patent court would be easily achievable provided the European Commission presents a legal proposal. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | No reason to be optimistic | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | June 11, 2021 at 8:17 pm | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | I would agree with ‘one of those’ that there is no reason to be optimistic, like there was none when the first complaint was filed. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | This said, I would add to Mr Mooney’s comments that the FCC should not be allowed to leave cases pending forever (the first case on the EPO is more than 10 years old), and should not be allowed to decide partially when they should know that the case will come back, with innuendos that the case suffers further deficiencies. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Also, Mr Mooney says that it will take 15 further months, but that delay appears to be fine… | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | June 12, 2021 at 12:50 pm | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | With due respect to his person, I think that Mr Mooney has missed an opportunity to keep quiet. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Who does he think he is to call the attitude of the GFCC “disgraceful”? As a lawyer, i.e. a person part of the judicial system, I find such a comment outrageous. Ever heard about contempt of court? That he is angry at all revenues which are not filling his pockets and that of his friends, does not warrant such a discourteous attitude. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | It appears however sure the longer the GFCC takes to decide the less the chances are that the UPC will enter into force. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Where does he know the names of the complainants? Does he has contacts with the registry of the GFCC? We have heard before that the complaints would be dismissed at once. The record seems to have a scratch again. That the new complaints are not on the agenda of the second Chamber of the GFCC has certainly brought him in rage. In the first decision, parts of the complaint were dismissed as they were not properly substantiated, they might now have | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | been better substantiated. On top of this, Point 106 of the first decision further raised a point which was not even raised by the complainant. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | The second ratification at the German Parliament has been obtained by hiding the real problems. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | The first problem is the inordinate costs for PMEs. Claiming that the costs before a supra-national self-financed court should be lower than before a German court is an insult to common sense. A court which has to be self-supporting and hence to have a fee level which is far beyond what appears reasonable is not a democratic court. The difference in fees between infringement (11 000€) and nullity (20 000€) makes it abundantly clear for which | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | the UPC is set up. The UPC has been set up for the big industry and internationally active lawyers firms. Further to the high fees, one can guess the fees which will be charged for a supra-national litigation by lawyers. And all this should be in the benefit of SMEs? | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | The situation created after Brexit with Art 7(2) UPCA and Art 3 of the Protocol on provisional application (PPA) mentions London, respectively the UK, has also been carefully dodged in the explanations given to the members of the German Parliament. When one compares an Article published in GRUR Int. by Mr Tillmann, a good friend of Mr Mooney, and the explanatory note to the second ratification bill, it is clear who has guided the hand of the | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | civil servants in the German Ministry of Justice. Lobbyism at its best! | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Even under the VCLT, the terms of Art 7(2) are abundantly clear and do not need interpretation. Simply claiming that the duties of London can be distributed to the remaining sections of Paris and London, is wishful thinking at its best. This is the more so, since Italy, The Netherlands and lately Denmark have claimed that the London section should come onto their territory. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | As long as the problems linked with Art 7(2) and the PPA are not solved it appears wishful thinking that the UPC can start. Should it start, any reasonable lawyer or representative would not advise his clients to start litigation or nullity at a court with such a shoddy basis. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | That a very specious interpretation of Art 87(2) UPCA as has been envisaged in order to dodge the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA shows a certain phantasy, but is at stake here is not phantasy but correct application of legal and constitutional rules. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | As far as the participation of the UK to the UPC without being EU member states, there are interesting considerations in a recent article from Mr Stjerna. According to the article, the German Ministry of Justice is still thinking how UK could still participate to the UPC in spite of not being EU member states. Under the present British PM this appears also to belong to the category wishful thinking. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | https://www.stjerna.de/files/Unipat-Art87.pdf | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Giorgio | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | June 12, 2021 at 1:58 pm | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Haha, if we get UPC incantations again, this is a sure sign that life gets back to normal. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | All the best, but do not build your life on the expectation that the UPC will open in 2022. 😉 | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Curious | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | June 12, 2021 at 3:28 pm | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | According to the his firm’s website, Mr Mooney is a UK lawyer. No infos are given regarding possible further citizenships. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | I am actually wondering, why a UK lawyer – who can not practice before the court (?) – ia allowed to participate in the creation of an EU court. And the other question is, why does he care anymore, the UK did not want to be part of this… | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Apart of this, I too find his attitude towards the BVerfG highly inappropriate. If he likes to insult courts and judges, maybe he should start with the ones in the UK – but maybe this would lead to professional problems for Mr Mooney? | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | June 12, 2021 at 5:15 pm | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | @ A. Rebentisch | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | You seem not to be aware that there were no less than four drafts for a European patent in the EC (now EU) in the sixties of the last century. No agreement could be reached at the time between the then reduced number of contracting states. | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | It is only the fear of some European Countries to be inundated by not examined applications under the PCT which pushed European countries to reconvene and end the lockup at EU level. In order to do so, the idea from the then President of the German patent office was to split the procedure between a grant procedure and an after grant procedure in the EU member states. The second part of the idea was to open the grant procedure to non-EU member | Jun 17 17:46 |
| schestowitz | states. And we ended then on the one hand with the “open” Munich Convention of 1973 and on the other hand with the Luxembourg Conference on the Community Patent of 1975. That conference never led to a Community or now EU Patent for various reasons, among them the language problem and that of forum shopping. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | It is only in 2012 pushed by the lobby of the big industries and that of internationally active lawyers firms that the EU commission came up with the idea of a “reinforced cooperation” as it was clear from the outset that all members of the EU were not willing to participate in the creation of a EU Patent, now called the UP. As not all EU members wanted to participate from the outset it was only possible to come up with an agreement between | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | the EU members willing to participate. Poland and the Czech Republic have signed the UPCA but will not ratify as both countries considers the UP a danger for their industry. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Your idea that “a true EU patent court would be easily achievable provided the European Commission presents a legal proposal” is a nice idea, but will remain at this level as there will be no agreement on a true EU patent. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | On the other hand, with an average of 5 validations of an EP patent granted by the EPO in EU, the necessity of a UP/EUP does not imposes itself. This is the more so since Europe has lived perfectly well with the EP/EPO system and the exhaustion of rights of the patentees. When barely a third of the patents EP are granted to EU companies, it gives the non-European industry a simple way to attack the EU by opening a single point of attack. Is this | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | really what we want? | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Another solution, already proposed, would be to scrap the EPO, and start all anew within the EU and built a true EU patent office. This is certainly not an option. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2021 at 11:52 am | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | This has developed into an interesting thread. I particularly liked Attentive’s opening line, that Mr Mooney has missed a good opportunity to indulge himself in a period of silence. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | We have this week-end a G7 Meeting in which the representatives of “Global Britain” turn up for meetings with other European countries wearing Union Jack socks, in order to lecture them, and to tell the wider world how much better they are than anybody else at mediating the world’s toughest problems of the world, finding solutions nobody else can find, through sheer creativity, political pragmatism and world-wide legal experience (thanks | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | to the British Empire). They preen themselves, supposing that they are setting an example to the Rest of the World, how to live under the precious “Rule of Law”. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | It just doesn’t wash though, does it. Even as they ponce around on the world stage, they are choosing not to implement a BREXIT isolation Agreement they signed only a year and a half ago. And yet they continue to suppose that it should always be the UK who should chair every Meeting. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | The only connection Mr Mooney has with the EU, I guess, is that his “Global” law firm (and others like it) is keen to offer its services to all those corporations outside Europe, who see the UPC as vital to their interests in subjugating the whole EU market in one fell swoop. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Sundowner | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 13, 2021 at 8:47 pm | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Another chapter opens up in the epic “Mooney UPC Fantasies”. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | We learn that Mr Mooney is “one of the driving forces behind the UPC and UP”. I always thought that the European Parliament and the EU Member States were the “driving forces” behind the reform, but maybe that’s rather naive. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | I particularly like the statement “This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on preliminary measures, according to Mooney.” Mr Mooney, would you mind letting us know the basis of this allegation? Or, maybe, would the “Kluwer Patent Blogger” mind and ask the FCC press office – in line with basic journalistic standards – whether Mr Mooney’s allegation is true? I trust that | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | none of both will ever happen which pretty much tells you everything you need to know: This is just another example of the “Kluwer Patent Blogger” spreading plain “Team UPC” propaganda. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 11:03 am | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | See: | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | https://www.bristowsupc.com/latest-news/german-upc-ratification-on-hold/ | Jun 17 17:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.bristowsupc.com | German UPC ratification on hold | Latest news | Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent | Jun 17 17:47 | |
| schestowitz | “The BVerfG asked the Federal President to refrain from signing the draft legislation (which is one of the final steps required to promulgate the law, which would have enabled German ratification) while it considers the interim injunction application, and the President agreed to do so. “ | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Sundowner | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 11:44 am | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Thank you, LightBlue. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | 1) Where in this piece do you find any official confirmation of said statement? | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | 2) Since when is Bristows (replace at your convenience with a different pro-UPC outlet) a trustworthy source? | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Again: Contact the FCC press office and ask for confirmation that said allegation is true. I dont hold my breath that this will happen. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 10:05 pm | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/upc-in-karlsruhe-verfassungsklage-blockiert-abermals-einheitspatent-17144279.html | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Die Einführung des europäischen Einheitspatents, das Unternehmen Zeit und Geld sparen soll, stockt erneut wegen Verfassungsbeschwerden in Deutschland. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier gebeten, mit der Ausfertigung des notwendigen Gesetzes zu warten, bis über einen Eilantrag entschieden ist, wie ein Gerichtssprecher am Mittwoch auf Anfrage mitteilte. Eine Sprecherin des Bundespräsidenten | Jun 17 17:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.faz.net | UPC in Karlsruhe: Verfassungsklage blockiert abermals Einheitspatent | Jun 17 17:47 | |
| schestowitz | erklärte, dieser werde der Bitte nachkommen. „Wir warten nun das weitere Vorgehen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ab.“ | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 11:26 pm | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | So, do I see it right, that the President’s spokesperson explains that the President has reassured the Constitutional Court that he is certainly not going to sign while the court is still deliberating. Mr Mooney reports this statement of position as that the President is going to delay his signature “only” until the court finishes deliberations. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | Not sure whether including the word “only” is legitimate, or something which these days goes by the name “spin”. | Jun 17 17:47 |
| schestowitz | It reminds me of the two sides of the story of what Queen Elizabeth II thinks about Meghan’s naming her new-born daughter with her great grandmother’s pet name, Lilibet. Proud father Harry reports that he ‘phoned his granny in advance, to let her know the choice of name, and that Granny didn’t veto it. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | But that’s not the same as the Queen giving the name her blessing, is it Harry, Meghan, Mr Mooney? | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Sundowner | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2021 at 9:02 am | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | May I remind you that the statement in question is – my emphasis addded – “This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on PRELIMINARY MEASURES, according to Mooney.” | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Please check what the differences are between FCC proceedings on the merits with and w/o a request for preliminary measures. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | I doubt that the Federal President has limited his consent not to sign to “a decision on preliminary measures” and also, that the court would accept such limitation. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | “Kluwer Patent Blogger”, any news from the FCC press office? | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Fragender | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2021 at 7:46 am | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | @MaxDrei: Thanks, I was going to write something similar… | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Actually, according to the article: | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | “This time however, the German president has said he will only delay his signature pending a decision on preliminary measures, according to Mooney.” | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | So, taken at face value, Mr. Mooney alleges, that the President indicated he would sign the bill when the court has decided on preliminary measures irrespective of what the court decides… | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | I am quite sure that the President did not say something like this…. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 9:18 am | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | I fully support Max Drei’s last §. It should be made clear that the UPC is not there to help European industry, and even less European SMEs. It is to help internationally industrial actors helped by internationally acting lawyer firms like that of Mr Mooney and its friends. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Opening the UPC is opening a single point of attack for all those institutions to make direct attacks on European industry much easier! At the same time some people would be able to fill their already deep pockets, and for this, any means can be justified. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Lobbyism at its best! | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Unfried | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 11:08 am | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Mr Mooney’s dilemma (shared by many of his friends) is that he has only a superficial idea of German constitutional law and how the BVerfG operates in practice, their ignorance being written plainly across pieces like this. According to sec. 93(3) BVerfGG, the German UPC ratification act can be challenged in court within one year from its entry into force or the time is was issued which happened on 18/12/2020. Would it really make sense for | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | the BVerfG to decide before that time limit has expired and invite new complaints (which might be filed anyhow, preferably shortly before the lapse of said time limit)? Any sensible and sober person would not expect anything from the BVerfG on the new UPC complaints prior to 18/12/2021. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | one of those... | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 3:55 pm | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | especially if there are more urgent cases, this one has already been treated urgently once, and besides the decision also contained comments the legislative nor executive did comment upon themselves…. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | This case has therefore not been put on the “Lügenliste” (cases foreseen for 2021). | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Let’s see if one of the pending DG3/EPO cases makes it this year… | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | MN | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 7:15 pm | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Earlier this month, the UK has been given the green light to start the process of joining the CPTPP. The CPTPP has a chapter on IP rights, including various “patent provisions”. For example, the CPTPP requires a “grace” period for disclosures made by the the patent applicant or by a person that obtained the information from patent applicant. Will it be enough to implement such a grace period only for national, i.e. UK patents, or will | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | this require amendment of the EPC so that any European patent (application) pending/granted for UK are subject to such a “grace” period? Another CPTPP provision (currently suspended) requires availability of a patent term adjustment in case of an unreasonable granting authority delay, this very likely would also require amendment of the EPC. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | UK’s process of joining the CPTPP will raise new patent issues and dealing with these issues might overshadow any still existing effort/focus in enacting the UPC. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 14, 2021 at 11:42 pm | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | How interesting, MN. Of course the UK used to have a grace period before it conformed its law to the EPC in 1977. Perhaps we shall soon see the UK restoring to force the provisions of its Patents Act 1949, as part of its grand plan to resurrect the glories of its past thereby to re-create a “Global Britain” competitively fit for a bracing future. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Or perhaps the UK is banking on its diplomatic powers of persuasion being strong enough to create a domino-turning momentum and convince the other 37 Member States, one by one, to conform the EPC to the patent law of the CPTPP. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Otherwise, this looks to me like another case of the UK falling between two stools, thinking it can have its cake and eat it too. | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | Q | Jun 17 17:48 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 10:34 am | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | A grace period under the EPC would indeed require amendment of the EPC, but a grace period under national law for patent applications filed outside the EPC route does not prima facie look to be incompatible with the EPC. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Several other EPO member states have grace periods for patents under national law (Estonia, Turkey, Albania, San Marino) so there seems to be precedent here if the UK also wishes to implement one. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2021 at 11:51 am | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Q, I’m grateful. You prompted me to think about it some more. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Now that the UK is out of the EU, why shouldn’t the UK remain an EPC Member State but also amend its domestic law of patents to re-introduce a grace period? I don’t yet see anything to stop it. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Opinion has always been divided, on the merits of a grace period. I for one would enjoy a reinvigoration of that age-old debate, prompted by a “Top Six” EPC Member State proposing to bring back a grace period, thereby to displace the Old World of First to File (or First to Invent) and usher in a new world of “First to Publish” . How about that, to turbo-charge the promotion of progress within the useful arts? Judging by the | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | geographical spread of the availability of a grace period, only the governments of Old Europe would be against it. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Guardian of the EPC | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | June 16, 2021 at 1:41 pm | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Q, in my opinion, Art. 64(1) EPC prima facie renders a grace period under national law for patent applications filed outside the EPC route incompatible with the EPC. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | MN | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | June 15, 2021 at 3:13 pm | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | “Or perhaps the UK is banking on … convince the other 37 Member States … to conform the EPC to the patent law of the CPTPP” | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | The required amendments to the EPC: Art.55 EPC – introducing a general grace period for disclosures (Non-prejudicial disclosures) -, and Art.69 EPC – introducing patent term adjustment in case of unreasonable delays at the EPO – are “pro-patent”, pro-inventor, and, in and of themselves, worth of consideration. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | Like TRIPS, the patent provisions in CPTPP (USMCA) are perhaps best seen as carefully discussed and agreed upon “best-practice”, and not as some “imperial” idiosyncratics imposed on vassal parties. | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 17:49 |
| schestowitz | for archival | Jun 17 17:54 |
| schestowitz | they delete comments sometimes | Jun 17 17:54 |
| schestowitz | > *SITE TRANSLATION;* | Jun 17 18:54 |
| schestowitz | > It stopped about 2 years ago and I vaguely remember you saying you were | Jun 17 18:54 |
| schestowitz | > not able to reactivate. Please give it another try, maybe things have | Jun 17 18:54 |
| schestowitz | > changes so that we can restore it. | Jun 17 18:54 |
| schestowitz | I think it's just a little batch of code in the page, maybe it needs updading a bit. | Jun 17 18:54 |
| schestowitz | The downside it, by adding that code you let Google spy on all visitors to your site. | Jun 17 18:55 |
| schestowitz | > What you see if you click on site translation…. | Jun 17 18:55 |
| schestowitz | Re: Error message | Jun 17 18:55 |
| schestowitz | Re: Stallman Support | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | Adrienne G. Thompson wrote on 15/06/2021 21:21: | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > Hi Roy: | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > Do you know who is behind stallmansupport.org <http://stallmansupport.org>? | Jun 17 19:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-stallmansupport.org | In Support of Richard Stallman - Introduction | Jun 17 19:05 | |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > Are they men, women, mostly men, mostly women? | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | > Just wondering. :-) | Jun 17 19:05 |
| schestowitz | I only know they are reading techrights because they wrote to thank me. | Jun 17 19:06 |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 19:10 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 19:10 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/empathyeducates/status/1405237719010361352 | Jun 17 19:16 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@empathyeducates: When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we kn… https://t.co/MOGX94FW16 | Jun 17 19:16 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@empathyeducates: When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we kn… https://t.co/MOGX94FW16 | Jun 17 19:16 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 19:16 |
| schestowitz | When in 2015 before the Iowa caucus, longtime Clinton Biden donor introduced easily comprised voting machines we knew it was election interference: | Jun 17 19:16 |
| schestowitz | Microsoft, the pseudo charity Gates Foundation waged war on democracy and squashed free-open source software | Jun 17 19:16 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 19:16 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/EmiHermes/status/1405555931602116608 | Jun 17 19:18 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EmiHermes: Raspberry PI [17/06/2021] Retwitted [17/06/2021] #RaspberryPI #EmiHermesBot https://t.co/ZpBTKVVKfb | Jun 17 19:18 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: "The #RasPad 3 is a neat project that enables you to turn your Raspberry Pi 4 into a full tablet! In this video, I'… https://t.co/2fKbuYCkBo | Jun 17 19:18 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/UndeadDrMcCoy/status/1405374544869675008 | Jun 17 19:19 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@UndeadDrMcCoy: @EButlerIV @schestowitz I mean, we all know *why* he did that, Roy has been a reactionary shitheel for a long time... | Jun 17 19:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/EButlerIV/status/1405345632106254343 | Jun 17 19:19 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz https://t.co/CB5Pq0zeET | Jun 17 19:19 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Cavalorn: 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. | Jun 17 19:19 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/EButlerIV/status/1405345328392552451 | Jun 17 19:20 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from… https://t.co/FevXTVgrnF | Jun 17 19:20 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@EButlerIV: @schestowitz IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from… https://t.co/FevXTVgrnF | Jun 17 19:20 | |
| schestowitz | "IMO: spend less time acting shocked and more time seriously thinking about how/why you were wrong from day one and spent weeks carrying water for the manic manbaby who spent the last month doing everything everyone (like the staffers who *unanimously* resigned) knew he would." | Jun 17 19:20 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/VoinTsynk/status/1405325881585942528 | Jun 17 19:20 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@VoinTsynk: @schestowitz Two words: Andrew Lee. | Jun 17 19:20 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1405083119359860736 | Jun 17 19:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz @fsf You cannot quote people like this. | Jun 17 19:21 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/SwerianBot/status/1405072733344612352 | Jun 17 19:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@SwerianBot: Hello @schestowitz @RealDonaldTrump #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar,… https://t.co/oYYeiMFD4b | Jun 17 19:21 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@SwerianBot: Hello @schestowitz @RealDonaldTrump #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar,… https://t.co/oYYeiMFD4b | Jun 17 19:21 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 19:21 |
| schestowitz | Hello @schestowitz | Jun 17 19:21 |
| schestowitz | @RealDonaldTrump | Jun 17 19:21 |
| schestowitz | #lie : 'Says that when his supporters chanted 'send her back' about Ilhan Omar, he stopped it.' #Trump #MAGA #RacistInChief | Jun 17 19:21 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 17 19:21 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/gilescope/status/1405038532670988290 | Jun 17 19:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@gilescope: Pure rust Bpf lib: https://t.co/feeBoYCByb | Jun 17 19:21 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: Announcing Aya https://t.co/bZDshTHtR9 #rustlang #BPF | Jun 17 19:21 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/umbrosious/status/1404964720067727361 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@umbrosious: @schestowitz "lying media" campaign not going how you thought it would, Royboy? | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/sohkamyung/status/1404962590447456256 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sohkamyung: @schestowitz Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to in… https://t.co/cxPUwoHAhP | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sohkamyung: @schestowitz Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to in… https://t.co/cxPUwoHAhP | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | "Article does say legislation was introduced "to limit the use of the app and its subsequent data to infectious disease contact-tracing purposes only."" | Jun 17 19:22 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/peterfraserbris/status/1404907824547721219 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@peterfraserbris: @schestowitz What's amazing is the Trump supporters who are not well off yet they think he's their Messiah. | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/anikaraja_ibmer/status/1404833325613604866 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@anikaraja_ibmer: oh this is good .. #IAMIBMEXPERT @ibm_in https://t.co/DvhK0Je3eX | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: "Best of #ibm you are allowed to bring person" https://t.co/5CM59EMLaJ IBM... is a private club os MBAs and reckles… https://t.co/XecfCGPCCh | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1404777051412963328 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz Right, nobody should be suspended, by I am not sure the EFF would agree with that. | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/mektronik/status/1404776420727922691 | Jun 17 19:22 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@mektronik: @threedogsonekid @peterfraserbris https://t.co/zPaCw2PRvF | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #CommonDreams #grifting #theft ☞ Analysis Highlights Biden Proposal to End $84 Billion Gift to #BigOil Bur… https://t.co/IlHFi65bae | Jun 17 19:22 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/sherrydiane1212/status/1404747450162761728 | Jun 17 19:23 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@sherrydiane1212: #RealityWinner & @EverybodyHatesSherry both survive #TexasHospitals https://t.co/5HQCPsMx0f | Jun 17 19:23 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #Shadowproof ☞ Mother Of #NSA #Whistleblower #RealityWinner Describes Her Daughter’s Release From Prison https://t.co/8CFGfUKC20 | Jun 17 19:23 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 19:28 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 19:28 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 19:31 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 19:32 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 19:43 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 19:44 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 20:17 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 20:17 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 20:21 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 20:22 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone (~daemonfc@qyffu23nukq9n.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 20:56 | |
| *DaemonFC_phone has quit (connection closed) | Jun 17 21:15 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@i2ug7yw84eszy.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 21:17 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 21:57 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 21:57 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 22:01 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 22:01 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Jun 17 22:17 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@bfk38rfbykmgc.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 22:53 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 22:55 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 17 22:55 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 23:04 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@22e8m8t4gqjin.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jun 17 23:05 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.