Francis Hagel, below I have provided paragraphs 46 to 48 of the lecture that I referred to. You will see that it discusses all the factors that a judge must take into account, and a key one of these is 'justice' for all concerned. None of the above comments places importance on this when looking at the issue of what the description needs to say. It is importa [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] nt to see that justice might need to be achieved at the expense of certainty.
____
46. Only one thing is therefore certain. It is that, while as much of it as possible
is desirable, certainty is not the ultimate or wholly achievable aim of the law.
The answer to my question must be as indefinite as Lord Browns was last
year. The judicial role often involves the identification, evaluation and
app [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] lication of fundamental societal principles, with all the room for
disagreement that this involves. These principles are not or not necessarily
the utilitarian principles that Bentham advocated. His thinking remarkably
ignores the propensity of majorities to overlook the interests of minorities.
Judges have a special role to protect unpopular interests and the interests of
the unpopular. The identifica [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] tion, evaluation and weighing of principles
which quite often pull in different directions is of the essence of judging, not
only when shaping the common law but also when interpreting statute law.
47.That necessarily introduces an element of uncertainty into the law. One
persons certainty is anothers doubt, one persons preference is rejected by
another. We no longer possess the same confidenc [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] e or faith that led to the
natural law thinking of the 17th and earlier centuries. But we live in a liberal
democracy, and, unless we have, and judges seek to identity and reflect,
some fundamental societal values, the law would be neutered rather than
neutral, and it would be unclear what if any stance it should take on any
number of issues. That would be an abrogation of role. Oliver Wendell
Ho [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] lmes said, much more pithily than I, in The Path of the Law, that
certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man.
48.It cannot of course be for each judge to identify and apply his or her entirely
independent value system. Precedent, consistency, analogy and above all an
appreciation of the limits of the judicial as opposed to the legislative role all
continue to serve as i [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] mportant controls or restraints. The collegial aspect of
legal practice can also instil common standards so long as it is not at the
expense of diversity of all kinds at every professional level though that is
another theme. Although the law is not a science, it is a disciplined system to
which (as Sir Edward Coke saw) judges must be loyal.
[01:20] schestowitz[TR2] Following T 1158/20, T 758/20 is not the only deci... http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/vico-oral-proceedings-true-gold-or.html?showComment=1681724870229#c1015746671010264518 [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] Following T 1158/20, T 758/20 is not the only decision of the same board forcing OP by ViCo. T 2762/19 has to be added to this list. See my posts in another blog.
What is interesting is the fact that the present board, as well that in T 1624/20, have added a further criterion when deciding to hold forced OP by ViCo.
The boards insisting to hold OP by ViCo seem to have added a new criterion to be justified b [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] y the party requiring OP in person rather than by ViCo: the requesting party has to show why an OP by ViCo would not be appropriate in the actual case. Whilst the term appropriate is to be found in four places in G 1/21, cf. reasons 19, 37, 39 and 43, it is nowhere to be found in reasons 48 and 49 of G 1/21 which are at the core of G 1/21.
It cannot be that for reasons, manifestly of convenience, that the boa [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] rds can decide when a case is appropriate for an OP by ViCo. It is also not for a board to decide that OP by ViCo are equivalent to OP in person, as long as the EBA has not decided so.
In G 1/21, the EBA established a double condition for OP to be held by ViCo. The parties should be impaired in coming to the premises of the EPO and only then the case should be suitable for holding the OP by ViCo. It is difficult to [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] claim that parties are presently impaired to come to the premises of the EPO
As far as G 1/21 is concerned, it is worth reminding Art 21 RPBA20:
Should a Board consider it necessary to deviate from an interpretation or explanation of the Convention contained in an earlier decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal according to Article 112, paragraph 1, EPC, the question shall be referred to the Enlarged Bo [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] ard of Appeal.
The Boards have thus no competence to set aside G 1/21, be it with a dynamic interpretation la G 3/19, as in G1/21the EBA made abundantly clear that the gold standard for OP is OP in person.
If all parties wish OP by ViCo, then there is no reason not to hold OP by ViCo.
I all parties wish OP in person it is not for a board to decide that the OP is to be held by ViCo and the [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] parties to be required to explain why the case is not appropriate for OP by ViCo.
If not all parties agree on OP by ViCo, then a mixed mode OP is to be offered to the parties.
I am fully aware that Art 15a(1), as noted by the opponent in the present case, gives the boards a infinite discretion in matters of OP.
The minimum would be for Art 15a(1) to be aligned on G 1/21. Knowing what happened arou [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] nd G 1/21, it is no more than a wish, as holding OP by ViCo correspond to the general policy of the EPO.
After all, it is not for the EPO and its BA to decide what is good for the parties.
[01:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat [01:20] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Construing the claims to include technical effects mentioned in the description (T 1924/20) - The IPKat [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] And so we lay to rest the final vestiges of the appearance of impartiality of the EPO's Boards of Appeal.
Reaching conclusions based upon assertions for which no evidence is provided (no doubt because no such evidence exists). Ignoring an obligation under Article 21 RPBA to refer questions to the EBA. All to arrive at a conclusion that, conveniently, enables the EPO's management to continue implementing the [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] ir digital strategy.
Such a level of disregard for the rule of law suggests that at least some Boards have given up even trying to present a facade of independence. [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] >I've always been a bit of a fan of ViCo for exam hearings, but as my experience of ViCo opposition hearings grows, I have been surprised by how few of my opposite number follow the guidance set out to improve the experience for all: one face per camera, use a headset and dedicated mic, etc. With these in place I do believe the hearings can be fair, which is surely the point. Whether better or not depends on a number of factors. [01:20] schestowitz[TR2] In amongst many fine experiences, I once had a hearing in Berlin where the opposition division were silhouetted against a window with bright sun, and a hearing next to bridge in Munich with a constant stream of Octoberfest participants. These were not ideal, and for reasons outside my control- at least I have influence over my camera and internet connection quality! [01:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | ViCo oral proceedings: True gold or fool's gold? (T 0758/20) - The IPKat ● Apr 18 [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] >> [03:52]Gulag (Stephanie Taylor) [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > It would be good to know if Stephanie wrote this somewhere or if it was [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > only verbal [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > If we have written proof or a witness then it could be sufficient to run [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] > a law suit against Google [02:55] schestowitz[TR2] yes, that's what I was thinking too. ● Apr 18 [04:29] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:32] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:35] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:37] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [05:02] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [05:04] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [05:31] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [05:32] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] [06:01] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.dedoimedo.com | Plasma, Dolphin, VLC, intermittent playback, double window [06:12] schestowitz[TR2]Plasma, Dolphin, VLC, intermittent playback, double window
[06:01] schestowitz[TR2][06:01] schestowitz[TR2][06:01] schestowitz[TR2]Welcome to a fresh article on VLC problems in the Plasma desktop environment. Sounds like a deja vu. Well, because it is. A while back, I wrote an article about intermittent playback errors from Samba shares when using the Plasma desktop and its Dolphin file manager. The workaround to the problem was to increase the prefetch value in VLC's settings, and Bob's your uncle. Now those [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] playback woes are back, but in a slightly different manner.
[06:01] schestowitz[TR2]I encountered the issue on my Slimbook Titan, which runs a fully up-to-date Kubuntu 22.04. The problems manifest thusly. You try to play a file, the progress bar shows yellow left-right progress bar animation, then resets itself. The file never plays. You try again, and sometimes, after a second or a fifth attempt, it works. Then, on top of that, when playing .avi files, there are [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] TWO VLC windows. You only see the second one when you try to close the player, and then under the normal interface, there's this weird old-school X window. Let's fix these.
[06:01] schestowitz[TR2][06:12] schestowitz[TR2] [06:12] schestowitz[TR2] [06:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl | Ten years atLinaro Marcin Juszkiewicz [06:29] *Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) [06:29] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [06:44] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [06:44] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [07:27] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [07:28] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [07:56] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [07:59] schestowitz[TR2]Ten years at Linaro
[06:12] schestowitz[TR2][06:12] schestowitz[TR2][06:12] schestowitz[TR2]Some time ago was a day when I reached ten years at Linaro. Why ? Because it was 3 + 7 rather than 10 years straight. First three years as Canonical contractor now seven years at Red Hat employee assigned as Member Engineer.
[06:12] schestowitz[TR2][07:59] schestowitz[TR2] [07:59] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-qz.com | What to know about the Dominion v Fox News defamation trial ● Apr 18 [08:00] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:05] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [08:06] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:24] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [08:27] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [09:12] schestowitz[TR2] x https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/how-did-the-tiktok-ban-become-a-bipartisan-issue [09:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.newyorker.com | How Did the TikTok Ban Become a Bipartisan Issue? | The New Yorker [09:15] schestowitz[TR2]What you need to know about Dominions $1.6 billion defamation trial against Fox
[07:59] schestowitz[TR2][07:59] schestowitz[TR2][07:59] schestowitz[TR2]A nearly 200-page public document (pdf) filed by Dominion on Feb. 16 is filled with internal emails, texts, and other evidence revealing that the hosts at the network, producers, and even the companys executive chairman, Rupert Murdoch, were aware that their election fraud claims were false. Heres a sampling of the evidence.
[07:59] schestowitz[TR2][09:15] schestowitz[TR2] [09:15] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.linuxtechi.com | How to Install VirtualBox on Fedora Linux Step-by-Step [09:17] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:19] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [10:31] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:34] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:45] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:52] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 18 [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] " [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] There have been some cases where the courts looked beyond the company [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] and seized personal assets of the directors: [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.weightmans.com/insights/personal-liability-of-directors-could-you-be-caught-out/ [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] You would need to get legal advice and probably have some evidence along [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] these lines: [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] - who was the director at the time you started employment? They should [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] have enrolled you in the pension [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] - any other directors since then [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] - assets of each director (house, shares, 2nd homes, cars, etc) - if [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] they really have no assets then it may not be worth your time. [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] - evidence of criminal acts / decisions / gross negligence leading to [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] the current problem. E.g. did they ever actively send you emails [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] referring to the promised pension? Do you have records of discussing [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] the pension during the hiring process? Same for all the other employees [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] you are in contact with. [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] If the director is also the owner of the company then their share of the [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] company is an asset and in the event that this person faces personal [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] bankruptcy, you could ask to take the company from the liquidator. [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] You need to remember that the purpose of limited companies is to shield [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] director and shareholder's assets in the case of mistakes and accidents. [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] If you are going to challenge that principle then you really need to [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] have convincing evidence that they knew they were doing something wrong. [11:18] schestowitz[TR2] " [11:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Personal liability of directors | Weightmans [11:42] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [11:42] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytesHow to Install VirtualBox on Fedora Linux Step-by-Step
[09:15] schestowitz[TR2] [09:15] schestowitz[TR2]