Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, August 21, 2021

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.

*techrights_guest|63 (~519aac55@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 02:18
*techrights_guest|62 (~519aac55@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 03:34
*schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 04:12
*schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term)Aug 21 04:12
*GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)Aug 21 05:23
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@btpf72bierk38.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 05:26
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 09:00
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 09:01
schestowitz 21 09:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@swiderman: @schestowitz because the business of nation building is not about the nation, it's about the building 21 09:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> | 37: making connections across space and time (the Primes) - Kindle edition by Swider, Paul. Literature & Fiction Kindle eBooks @ 21 09:05
schestowitz 21 09:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@TheNexxuz: @schestowitz "Covid deniers"? I have not once heard Bryan deny the existence of covid, nor have I seen anyone reply… 21 09:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@TheNexxuz: @schestowitz "Covid deniers"? I have not once heard Bryan deny the existence of covid, nor have I seen anyone reply… 21 09:06
schestowitz""Covid deniers"? I have not once heard Bryan deny the existence of covid, nor have I seen anyone reply stating that either. What we don't like is authoritarian govs enforcing unconstitutional "laws" & media / tech "platforms" not even allowing discussions about particular topics.'Aug 21 09:06
schestowitz 21 09:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@IraAnisimova1: @schestowitz 21 09:06
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@vv001953: Дочурка главаря Талибан... Швейцария... 21 09:06
schestowitz 21 09:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@PrincessHera10: @schestowitz Get the best from Centric swap (CNS) and centric rise (CNR). For more Info, visit 👇👇 21 09:07
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> | Centric » Global Currency on the Binance Smart Chain that Yields HourlyAug 21 09:07
schestowitz 21 09:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ianrobo1: This is just out and out corruption and no MP not a single one should receive donations at all and all should be fu… 21 09:09
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@ianrobo1: This is just out and out corruption and no MP not a single one should receive donations at all and all should be fu… 21 09:09
schestowitz"This is just out and out corruption and no MP not a single one should receive donations at all and all should be funnelled through strong party hq and procedures'Aug 21 09:09
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 09:17
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 09:18
*psydroid_ (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 09:47
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 10:17
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 10:17
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 10:32
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 10:32
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 10:45
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 10:45
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 10:57
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 10:58
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 11:53
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 11:53
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 11:55
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 11:55
*techrights_guest|62 has quit (Quit: Connection closed)Aug 21 12:03
*techrights_guest|63 has quit (Quit: Connection closed)Aug 21 12:03
schestowitz 21 12:40
-TechBytesBot/ | German legislation for ratification Unified Patent Court Agreement enters into force - Kluwer Patent BlogAug 21 12:40
schestowitz"Aug 21 12:40
schestowitz28 commentsAug 21 12:40
schestowitzD.X.ThomasAug 21 12:40
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 10:13 AMAug 21 12:40
schestowitzIt is nice to consider that the ratification by Germany is a step forward towards the UPC.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzI however consider that the ratification has been acquired fraudulently because the members of Bundestag and Bundesrat have been misled by the Ministry of Justice in the explanatory not annexed to the new ratification bill.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhen you compare the accompanying note with an article published in GRUR Int. by Mr Tilmann with the actual content of said explanatory note, it can easily be seen who held the hand of the civil servants in the ministry.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzThe problem of Art 7(2) UPCA has been dodged in this accompanying note as in the ratified agreement London is still expressis verbis mentioned as section of the central division. As the wording is crystal clear, Art 31 and 32 VCLT cannot allow a different interpretation, even a “dynamic” one.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzTrying to “provisionally” transfer the duties allotted to London to Paris and/or Munich, will encounter resistance from Italy, The Netherlands and lately Ireland which all want to see the London Section coming to them.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzIt appears rather naïve to think that those countries will nod in approbation to the “provisional” transfer to Paris or Munich. But this is what has been suggested to the German MPs! The Brexit “gift only exists in the vivid imagination of some lawyers.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzIf the notion of rightful judge has any meaning, simply ignoring Annex II of the UPCA defining the IPC classes to be dealt with in London (A, C), Paris (B, D, E, G, H) and Munich (F) is a no-go.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzA “provisional” allocation to Paris/Munich and a later transfer under Art 87(2) UPCA does not appear to have a legal basis as Art 87(2) has a totally different purpose.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzArt 87(2) only allows an administrative alignment of the UPCA with international treaties on patents and with Union law once all the member states of the UPCA have already adopted the corresponding rules in their national legal system.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzIt remains a mystery how this alignment to existing legal requirements can authorise, first a “provisional” transfer of the duties allotted to London and afterwards the “final” transfer to another country. This is the opinion of the proponents of the UPCA, but the explanation given here shows that it is a legal opinion without any substance.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzThe only way to deal with the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA would be to renegotiate said Art, but this would mean at least a partial, if not a full ratification of the amended UPCA. The proponents of the UPCA know too well that this would be the end of their dreams.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzI also wonder how a treaty establishing a jurisdiction in which supremacy of Union Law is expressed can be in conformity with the latter, when a UPC judge can be removed from office by the presidium of the UPC without offering him a possibility of redress. See Art 10 of the Statute of the court which is part of the UPCA.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzDue to the British influence, it was envisaged that part-time judges could be sit at the UPC. This seems to be a specificity of the English legal system. On the continent this notion is unknown, at least when it comes to decide finally on the fate of assets in civil jurisdictions. How can the notion of part-time judge be in conformity with constitutional rights in the remaining member states of the UPCA?Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzAs far as the two protocols are at stake, it should be remembered that the UK is still mentioned as necessary country to adopt them before they can enter into force.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhat is going on here is willingly ignoring the terms of a legally signed and ratified international agreement. Nobody had expected Brexit, but Brexit is a reality and trying to deal with the difficulties thus created in such an illegal manner is simply opening the door to a legal jungle. This is not the kind of European integration I want to see.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzI want however to make one thing clear: I am not at all against European integration, on the contrary. But I have not yet seen any convincing or compelling reasons why the UP/UPCA system will bring it.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzIf it would be for all EU member states then why not? But it is not the case!Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhy have Poland and the Czech Republic signed but will not ratify the UPCA?Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhen it is claimed that the translation problem is solved by the UP/UPCA system just have look at the language regimen in the rules of procedure. It is a nightmare, as only before the central section the language of the proceedings will be the language in which the EP/UP was granted.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzFurthermore, any costs for simultaneous interpretation will be costs of the case and the losing party will have to foot this bill as well. Even if they are ceilings foreseen for SMEs, it is difficult to see how they will be able to cope with such a burden. Only the simultaneous interpretation costs for the panel will be borne by the UPC.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzOne can also ask questions whether the language regimen for obtaining a UP is in conformity with the London protocol.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhen it is claimed that a UP is cheaper than an EP, apples and pears are compared. The average number of validations for an EP in EU member states is between 3 and 5. It is only if all the fees for all EU member states are totted up, that it is cheaper. But in view of the average number of validations this cannot be the case!Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzLast but not least, when you know that barely 30% of patents granted by the EPO belong to EU proprietors, I have difficulty in understanding why the UP/UPCA system is good for European industry in general and European SMEs in particular.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzIt is thus legitimate to ask which industry will benefit from the UP/UPCA system, and especially which profession will be allowed to fill its already deep pockets. Knowing what national litigation costs, I dare imagine the costs in case of a supra-national litigation.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzWhen on top you see that the basic fee for infringement (11 000 €) is nearly half that for an action on nullity (20 000€) it becomes abundantly clear which party is directly favoured in case of litigation.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzAs the above considerations can be seen as a resumé of various posts on LinkedIn, I have decided to publish them under my name.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzThe Convention watchdogAug 21 12:40
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 4:40 PMAug 21 12:40
schestowitzEven people with a long EP history may have a short memory. Art. 160 (2) EPC 1973 allowed part-time Board members for exactly the same reason as the UPCA allows part-time judges for the UPC: flexible adaptation of the number of staff necessary for a still unknown number of cases.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:40
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 11:32 PMAug 21 12:40
schestowitzI want to make clear that part-time judges might be a feature in some member states of the EPC, but not in the remaining UPCA/EU member states.Aug 21 12:40
schestowitzEven the GFCC decided that part-time judges are only acceptable under two conditions:Aug 21 12:40
schestowitz1) they are civil servants for life time;Aug 21 12:41
schestowitz2) they cannot be reappointed.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThat such part time judges were acceptable under EPC 1973 is not relevant in this day and age.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzUnder EPC 1973 British examiners could also act as first members in EPO examining divisions.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzAll the argumentation on part-time judges in Switzerland or under EPC 1973 are thus irrelevant.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzOne of the reasons Ireland has entered the race for getting the London section is that Ireland is the only important country adhering to the common law system.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzMax DreiAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 17, 2021 AT 6:28 PMAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAttentive, I had not appreciated that Ireland had thrown its hat into the ring. Thanks for that.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzUnder Prime Minister Johnson, the government in London (England) is emphasizing that the UK is constituted by FOUR great nations (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland). Bear in mind that, even today, at least in the sport of Rugby Union, the island of Ireland is one united whole. What a visionary and future-oriented move it would be, to shift the UPC pharma-biotech operation from common law London England to common law Dublin Ireland. One might Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzalmost classify it as a trivial “fix” of a minor drafting point.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzGiven the importance of fact-finding in chem/bio cases by lawyer-supervised rival, opposed, laboratory investigations, it is good to have chem/bio cases in a common law jurisdiction, where the fact-finding procedures are so strict and forensic. This keeps the opposed parties honest. This is important should the parties ever contemplate litigating the same patent in a civil law jurisdiction.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThat, I had supposed, was the whole point of allocating chem/bio to London (England). If so, preserve the logic by switching to Ireland. It’s an English language jurisdiction too. Just what those pushing the UPCA want most, eh? And usually they get what they want, eh?Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzLightBlueAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 17, 2021 AT 10:04 PMAug 21 12:41
schestowitzMaybe that is the solution. Since the Commission consider NI to be in the EU, perhaps the third court could be based in (London)Derry.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 1:34 AMAug 21 12:41
schestowitzDear MaxDrei,Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzCould you please be so kind and not confuse what I write with the statements of a person acting under the pseudo Attentive!Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzYour point is not exempt from a certain logic, but I fear that wh at matters here is not logic but political force and support.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThe reason for London was in my humble opinion not because it was the home of common law, but because of the fact that it was the third country witch had the most patents at a given date.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThis was the same as the countries needed to ratify the UPCA in order for it to enter in force.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzOn this basis, only IT or NL have a chance.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThe procedure before the UPCA was never conceived as implying cross examination in the Anglo-Saxon style.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzWhy should the files in IPC classes A and C be submitted to a British way of fact-finding and not those to be dealt with in Munich or Paris? To sum it up, a nice thought but little chance for Ireland. This is the more so in view of the very lenient position of Ireland in matters of company taxes. That NL is not much better in this matter will not withhold NL to claim that London should be replaced by Amsterdam or The Hague.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzNI is only part of the EU as far as goods are concerned in order to avoid a hard border between Ireland and NI. Thinking of locating the London section in Derry is beside a nice word play a no-go.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzAnon Y. MouseAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 6:27 PMAug 21 12:41
schestowitzSwitzerland, at least, also has part-time judges. Of course, Switzerland is not in the EU and will not be part of the UPC (if the UPC ever comes into existence). But the notion of part-time judges is not simply an English eccentricity with no counterparts anywhere in contintental Europe, as you seem to suggest, and cannot be dismissed that lightly.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzMore generally, there seems to be a notion among some commentators on the UPC that anything which is even slightly reminiscent of practices from the UK should be purged now that the UK is not a participant. That the UK is not a participant is regrettable; but do we really need to get rid of anything “contaminated” by the UK approach just because of that? Surely the goal should be to take elements of the best practices from judicial systems Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzaround the world, whether in the UK, EU or elsewhere.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzLet us not forget, too, that there are still EU members (at least Ireland and Malta) which retain strong influences from the English Common Law in their own national laws.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzfive centsAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 7:02 PMAug 21 12:41
schestowitzThese responses concerning the appointment of part-time judges seem to distract from the more obvious problems indicate by Mr. Thomas. Part-time judges were agreed on, put in law, and signed for.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzThis cannot be said of the hard-coded prominence of the UK and London in the UPC and PPA. All states signed for a specific portion of all cases being dealt with in London and for the provisional application not starting without the UK participating. If all states want to change that, they can. But the law will not change itself.Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzAnon Y. MouseAug 21 12:41
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 10:12 PMAug 21 12:41
schestowitz@Five Cents:Aug 21 12:41
schestowitzOn that, I completely agree – London is there in black and white in the text of the Agreement, and it is difficult to see by what mechanism the Agreement can be amended in that respect prior to its entry into force.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzA creative solution (with tongue firmly in cheek…) would be to note that, though the Agreement specifies “London”, it does not specify “London, England”. Could this be an opportunity for a small French village to come to the rescue…?,_FranceAug 21 12:42
-TechBytesBot/ | London, France - WikipediaAug 21 12:42
schestowitzBack in the real world, however, I agree that the problem of the London division does not appear to be quite as easy to hand-wave away as some may wish. Or, at least, not as easy to hand-wave away in a totally unambiguous fashion.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzI suspect that we’ve not seen the last act of this long-running farce just yet.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 11:37 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzA very well known lawyer and fierce supporter of the UPCA went as far as saying that Brexit was a gift for France as the duties allotted to the London Section would be transferred to Paris, but this gift should not be discussed too heavily.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzBad luck, Germany wants also part of the London cake!Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzWe can expect a hard haggling to come up when the duties of the London section will be allotted to another city!Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzFragenderAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 11:21 AMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzI completely agree.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzEspecially, since the BverfG decision probably does not apply here.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzAside from that, AFAIK there are part-time judges in Germany (e.g. some special BGH-senates have “Ehrenamtliche Beisitzer”, also in some state constitutional courts). And if I remember correctly, the Austrian supreme court has part-time judges for patent matters (drawn from the ranks of the Austrian Patent Office).Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzSo, while the institute of part-time judges might be critical (depending on their main job), it is not a novel solution…Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 11:20 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzTo make things clear I just said that part time judges where not a feature of the remaining UPCA/EU member states.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzI know very well that they are possible in Switzerland.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzEPC 1973 is not any longer valid.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzUnder the EPC 1973 examiners from the British IPO could be members of EPO examining divisions. This time is also over!Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzAll those reasons are thus not relevant in this day and age.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzEven the GFCC decided that part-time judges are only acceptable under two conditions:Aug 21 12:42
schestowitz1) the judges are civil servants for life time;Aug 21 12:42
schestowitz2) they cannot be reappointed.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzThe reason why Ireland wants the duties of the London section to be allotted to it, is exactly the fact that it is one of the common law states left in the EU. With due respect to Malta I do not think that it’s influence/contribution to common law is extremely important.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzLightBlueAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 5:22 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAccording to the UPCA, the AC can amend the agreement “to bring it into line with an international treaty relating to patents or Union law”. Would Brexit not fall under the scope of a treaty relating to Union law? In my view it would. So the AC can put a line through “London”. If a contracting member state were to object, then the agreement could be re-negotiated.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzfive centsAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 7:47 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzWhat is this ‘Brexit treaty’ you speak of? Could you maybe provide a link to the relevant articles of that Brexit treaty with which the text of the UPCA should be brought in line? Does that Brexit treaty prescribe how the UPCA should now be adapted?Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzAnonAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 10:53 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzWhile the Brexit agreement does not have provisions which directly deal with the UPC as such, it does have the effect that the UK ceases to be an EU member state.Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzGiven that the UPCA defines eligibility as limited to EU member states, would you agree that the UPCA is therefore affected by the Brexit agreement, even though the latter does not explicitly refer to the UPCA?Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzfive centsAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 11:04 PMAug 21 12:42
schestowitzOf course the UPCA is affected by Brexit. That’s the problem we’re discussing here. But Brexit is neither a patent treaty nor Union law. And even if it were, you can’t just align the UPCA with Brexit. Brexit doesn’t tell you if the tasks of London/UK should be eliminated or transferred to FR/DE/IT/NL/…Aug 21 12:42
schestowitzAnonAug 21 12:42
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 12:12 AMAug 21 12:43
schestowitzTo five cents – re. your message of 11:04 pm. Yes, of course the UPCA is affected by Brexit. But that’s not what you argued. You questioned the existence of a “Brexit treaty” at all. We now seem to be agreed that Brexit exists *by virtue of a treaty*. So that is progress of a kind.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzBy virtue of the Brexit treaty terminating the UK’s membership of the EU, that allows the UPCA to be “brought into line” in that it provides a mechanism for adapting the UPCA to remove references to the UK. That is a starting point, at least. And it gives the lie to those who suggest that the UPCA cannot legally be adapted *at all*, or at least not without a wholesale redrafting/reratification.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzOf course I agree with you that the Brexit treaty does not specify what the *precise solution* is, in other words what the *precise amendments* should be, beyond removing references to the UK in the UPCA. How the London division’s work is reallocated remains an open question.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzBut there is, is there not, a *legal* opening here, in other words a treaty affeting the UPCA which therefore requires consequential amendments? This provides a *legal* route to making the necessary, “surgical” amendments to the UPCA, once those amendments have been agreed at a political level. In other words, the legal mechanism exists and it exists because of the Brexit treaty. How that mechanism is used, now that is a matter of politics. But Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzthe mechanism exists, nonetheless, contrary to those who seem to argue that the UPCA is set in stone and cannot be amended unless it is redrafted from the ground upwards.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:43
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 3:32 PMAug 21 12:43
schestowitz@ Anon,Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzIt is the first time that I hear this interesting story.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzOne thing has to be acknowledged: the imagination of the UPCA proponents is without limit. First they told us that in spite of Brexit the UK could still continue to be a member state of the UPC. BoJo had a different opinion and this rant stopped.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzAs far the Brexit treaty is concerned it has been ratified by the European Parliament and I do not remember that the UP/UPCA system has been at all mentioned in the Brexit treaty, for the simple reason that it did not exist at the time. The argument of a surgical amendment to the UPCA is thus not acceptable.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzMoreover how can it be “surgical” to “provisionally” allocate the duties of the London section to France and Germany and wait for an amendment to the UP´CA under Art 87(2) to find a definitive place for the duties originally meant for London. A bit more coherence please.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzAs the EU is not a contracting state to the UP/UPCA system, this argument is clearly devoid of any merit.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzAnonAug 21 12:43
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 4:07 PMAug 21 12:43
schestowitzYou make the mistake, that so many in all things relating to the UPC do, of being so personally invested in a particular outcome that any mere comment and speculation around options other than that outcome are taken as being a “proponent” in the face of all reality, or characterised as “rants”. Not so. I am simply exploring a possible argument. Is that not the purpose of this forum? Why, of all the topics discussed on this blog, does the UPC Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzraise such personal and emotional stakes for so many people that they resort to name-calling and insults?Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzAnyway. The outline of the argument that I want to explore (and that is all it is at this stage – an argument which would need to be fleshed out; NOT a proposal and NOT an endorsement of any particular outcome), as I see it, is this:Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzArt. 87(2) UPCA allows amendments to the UPCA “to bring it into line with an international treaty relating to patents or Union law”.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzIs the Brexit agreement an international treaty? Yes.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzDoes it relate to Union law? Yes, at least insofar as it terminates the UK’s membership of the EU.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzSo does this activate Art. 87(2) UPCA?Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzI think the points of possible disagreement here all revolve around this point.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzIn your viewpoint (if I understand it correctly), the fact that the Brexit agreement relates to EU law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for amendments under Art. 87(2) UPCA. For it to be *sufficient*, the Brexit agreement would *also* have to specify precisely what amendments are to be made to the UPCA, including the fate of the London division. It does not, and therefore either (A) Art. 87(2) UPCA is not activated; or (B) Art 87(2) UPCA Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzis activated, but is toothless, because the amendments are left unspecified in the Brexit agreement.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzWhat I am trying to explore is an alternative, and I am interested in genuine thoughts on this if emotion can be put aside.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzIn the alternative position, the argument might go like this:Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzThe Brexit agreement is necessary and sufficient to activate Art. 87(2) UPCA to the extent that it permits the UPCA to be amended to remove any provisions relying (implicitly or explicitly) on the UK’s membership of the EU. At a minimum, this could include deletion of the reference to London in Art. 7(2) UPCA.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzI think the real point of disagreement here is what happens next. In your viewpoint (again, if I understand it correctly) it is not enough that London is deleted, there must be something specified to *replace* London. Because the Brexit agreement does not specify this, nothing can be done. In the counter-argument I want to explore, either:Aug 21 12:43
schestowitz(a) deletion of London from Art. 7(2) UPCA, leaving *only* Paris and Munich, is compliant with Art. 87(2) UPCA in consequence of the Brexit agreement terminating the UK’s EU membership; orAug 21 12:43
schestowitz(b) Brexit having terminated the UK’s EU membership, Art. 87(2) UPCA is activated at least to the extent that it opens Art. 7(2) UPCA to amendment, permitting deletion of London, *and* whatever other amendment to that article the Committee may wish to make at the same time.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzI have seen lots of emotional arguments but so far have seen no real legal arguments as to why this counter-position does not work. I’m not saying that it is indeed the right answer or even that it is a desirable one. But what, in your view, are the reasons that it is wrong?Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:43
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 11:03 AMAug 21 12:43
schestowitzThe interpretation you propose is the interpretation given by the UPC proponents. But the question is which international treaty is there to adapt the UPCA for? Which part of Union law will necessitate to be adapted.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzArt 87(2) UPCA has been devised for a quick adaptation of the UPCA with legal requirements stemming for international treaties or provisions of Union law already adopted by its member states.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzEven with the most audacious interpretation according to Art 31 and 32 VCLT it cannot be used to auto-correct itself. But this is what is actually proposed.Aug 21 12:43
schestowitzAnonAug 21 12:43
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 6:11 PMAug 21 12:43
schestowitzAs the comment nesting seems not to allow a continuation of the discussion above, see my above comment at 19 August 4:07 PM.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThat aside, to play devil’s advocate against myself, I have the feeling that the arguments around Art 87(2) are potentially a red herring.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzTo me, the strongest argument (and one that I have not seen articulated on this forum) could be summarised as follows. Art 87(2) is not subject to the Protocol on Provisional Applicaiton. It does not enter into force unless the UPCA enters into force. Thus there is no route to amend the UPCA *before* it enters into force. But if it enters into force, it does so with a London branch of the Central Division. For political reasons this is intolerable. Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzSo, we have a Catch-22 situation, as the conditions permitting the amendment cannot exist until the agreement comes into force – which it cannot do without in the first place giving rise to the very conditions that necessitate the amendment.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThis, to me, seems to be the strongest available argument against the legality of amendment of the UPCA at the present stage. The questions regarding the relationship between the Brexit treaty and Art. 87(2) are less clear-cut, for the reasons already set out in my comments above.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAUGUST 19, 2021 AT 10:01 PMAug 21 12:44
schestowitz@AnonAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAs far as I am concerned, I have no interest whatsoever at stake. I am not a lawyer and I am not a qualified representative with a litigation certificate so that I am not touched in the slightest by the whole outcome.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzWhat interests me is that the rule of law is respected and that a treaty enters into force with the proper content.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThere is no catch 22 situation at all. If all the signatory/ratifying states would come together in order to amend the UPCA, its Annexes and the various protocols, then the situation would be clear and would not suffer any discussion. Deleting London and replacing it by an other location would instantaneously solve most of the problems.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThat this procedure would cost some time is abundantly clear and the fear of all the proponents, or if you prefer the staunch supporters, of the UPCA is that all the momentum in favour of this system would vanish.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzAfter all, the EU has lived for more than 4 decades without a common patent litigation system. With the average number of validations, the necessity of such a complicated and expensive system is not apparent at all for most of the industries.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzWhat disturbs me, when you look deep down, is that the UP/UPC system has been adorned with a series of virtues that only serve to pass off private interests as public interests. The UP/UPC system is an absolute necessity for some circles. And any means to push it forward, even the most abstruse legal constructions are good for this.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThe UP/UPC system is meant to help European industry in general and European SMEs in particular, whilst it is opening a single door to attack European industry as barely 1/3 of the patents issued by the EPO belong to European patentees. I have difficulties in seeing any interestAug 21 12:44
schestowitzThe problem is that the only beneficiaries are the big industry strong enough to bear the costs and the international litigation industry helping it. it is not a little one.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzYes to European integration, but not the one proposed with the UP/UPC system!Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzMax DreiAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 12:17 PMAug 21 12:44
schestowitzStepping back from the detail, I for one have the feeling, Attentive, that what trumps everything else, in this sorry saga, is Germany’s present difficulty being a “good European”, by which I mean, good enough to be able to scold other EU Member States about any backsliding on upholding The Rule of Law.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzUpholding the Rule of Law in the EU Member States east of Germany is enormously important. Far more important than any adverse consequences to SME’s which the UPCA might bring in its wake. I mean, if the first UPCA case goes all the way to the CJEU which then declares it unlawful, German government shoulders will shrug and German Govt spokespeople simply declare: So what? Not our fault. Not our problem.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzTo repeat, the main thing at the moment is, we can’t let authoritarian heads of state, within our shared European Union, wilfully demolish precious and hard-won personal freedoms and basic human rights. Everything possible has to be done to arrest that trend, including Germany ratifying the UPCA.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzIf Germany were to back out of ratifying the UPCA it would be seized upon by all those States busy demolishing the Rule of Law in their countries, with the argument that I’m only following the example set by Germany, not only with the UPCA but also in the very unfortunate German Supreme Constitutional Court to declare unlawful the CJEU Decision on the ECB.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThe world is becoming more and more lawless. Europe must do all it can to nurture and preserve the precious notions of representative democracy, the separation of powers, and the Rule of Law. I don’t want to give any more excuses to dictators within the EU to destroy what has been painstakingly built up over centuries.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzApocalyptic, you may say. But we are indeed on the verge of an apocalypse, are we not?Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 11:45 PMAug 21 12:44
schestowitzDear Max Drei,Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzI cannot but agree with you.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThe EU cannot tolerate that the judicial power comes under control of the executive in Poland or Hungary and at the same time accept that the notion of the rightful judge is trodden on just because it is in the interest of big industry and internationally acting lawyers firms.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzThis is not the type of European integration I want for my children and grandchildren.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzIf the rule of law is serving private interests, we will end up in the jungle and only the right of the strongest will prevail!Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzNo, thank you!Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzDenisAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 1:41 PMAug 21 12:44
schestowitzThe ECB decision of the GFCC was not really unfortunate, but in the end unavoidable. Here is a very good summary of the problem and its current status:Aug 21 12:44
schestowitz 21 12:44
schestowitzPedroAug 21 12:44
-TechBytesBot/ | Stewing Conflict Between German High Court and the EU Could Boil Over - DER SPIEGELAug 21 12:44
schestowitzAUGUST 16, 2021 AT 7:48 PMAug 21 12:44
schestowitzI find it telling that the German ratification occurred on Friday the 13th.Aug 21 12:44
schestowitzIf the German had a sense of humour, one could have said that they did it on purpose.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzPatent robotAug 21 12:45
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 2:34 PMAug 21 12:45
schestowitzIMHO there is only a solution: amending and re-signing the Protocol, which has been created already before Brexit because the Agreement could not have entered into force without some “adjustments”.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzThe new Protocol should not make any reference to the UK and should add that if a seat is not available on the date of entry into force (e.g. London and Budapest), it should be moved “temporarily” to an already available seat (e.g. Milan).Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzDXThomasAug 21 12:45
schestowitzAUGUST 18, 2021 AT 3:50 PMAug 21 12:45
schestowitzDear Patent Robot,Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzYou have an interesting suggestion, but the problem is not the PPA, the problem is in the UPCA itself.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzEven if the PPA is amended and the UK is deleted, the PPA cannot serve to indirectly amend the UPCA itself.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzLondon is in black and white in the UPCA and cannot disappear with a magical wand.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzThe only way to deal correctly with the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA is to rewrite the article and to re-ratify, either the new Art 7(2) UPCA or the UPCA as a whole, as also annexes have to be amended.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzThe proponents of the UPC know too well that it would be the death knell of the UPC, and this is why any other solution is preferred. Whether this solution is legal does not seem to be a problem for those proponents.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzI would also like to be a fly on the wall when the discussions about the, in my opinion illegal, “provisional” transfer of the duties allotted to London to another place takes place. We have three contenders! And France and Germany want to get the part of the cake which was given to London.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitzWhen one remembers how arduous the haggling which ended up with the comprise in Art 7(2) UPCA was, I doubt that even there an agreement will be reached.Aug 21 12:45
schestowitz"Aug 21 12:45
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 12:46
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 12:46
schestowitz 21 12:54
-TechBytesBot/ | Artificial Intelligence system as inventor in South African patent application: The case of DABUS - The IPKatAug 21 12:54
schestowitz|Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzAttentive, Catnic, below I reproduce text from a Paper by CIPA recommending how to manage inventions with involvement by an AI:Aug 21 12:54
schestowitz"c) are there situations when a human inventor cannot be identified?Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzAnswer: Yes – for Type 3 inventions, the contribution of an AI system to an invention may be Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzsuch that human involvement, for example in setting up, operating and processing the output of Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzthe AI system, falls short of being “the actual deviser of the invention” according to the Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzprevailing interpretation of section 7(3) of Patents Act (PA) 1977."Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzI continue to think that my idea of falling back on the old idea of a "communication invention" has much to commend it.Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzImagine a fortune teller, Mystic Meg, with a crystal ball. Meg sees in her Magic Ball a new, useful and unobvious contribution to a field of technology. She files a patent application and names herself, not the Magic Ball as "inventor". For indeed she was, as the very first human being to conceive that invention. The Ball outputted information but lacks any capacity to conceive a patentable invention.Aug 21 12:54
schestowitzThe nice thing about my proposal is that it copes with any output from an AI, no matter how "inteligent" the AI becomes. Aug 21 12:54
schestowitz|Aug 21 12:54
schestowitz"Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzExcellent example of begging the question here;Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzAI systems are capable of inventing and have invented patentable products and seeing as the question of the identity of an inventor is a question of fact, it would be factually incorrect to name a natural person as inventor when an AI system is responsible for an invention. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzAI systems cannot and have not invented anything. AI systems do not exhibit creativity. AI systems are currently merely tools for searching a potentially huge parameter space. In an AI-based invention, the creativity comes from the person who set up the system and applied their own judgement to the offered results. Giving your AI system a funky name does not make it a person, or an inventor. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzIncidentally, given that ZA does not examine applications, citing this as some breakthrough for AI "inventorship" is also nonsense. The offices that do critically examine applications have reached a unanimous decision, from which there is currently no reason to move.Aug 21 12:55
schestowitz"Aug 21 12:55
schestowitz 21 12:55
-TechBytesBot/ | Artificial Intelligence system as inventor in South African patent application: The case of DABUS - The IPKatAug 21 12:55
schestowitz|Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzAI has become a buzzword and the possibility to get a lot of money from the state or equivalent. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzIt is a hype and I fear that the hype will die out like preceding ones. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzWhen you go down on the actual structure of what is called AI, you have to realise that it is totally artificial and anything but intelligent.Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzI therefore still my problems in considering that AI can be as creative, hence be able to invent. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitzOne thing is clear Mr Thaler has got all the PR he needed. Aug 21 12:55
schestowitz|Aug 21 12:55
schestowitz 21 12:57
-TechBytesBot/ | When does pre-clinical data plausibly support a therapeutic effect? (T 966/18) - The IPKatAug 21 12:57
schestowitz"Aug 21 12:57
schestowitzInaccuracy of the article: Aug 21 12:57
schestowitzInjected mice were divided into three groups of four animalsaccording to their antibody titer (low, high, none).Aug 21 12:57
schestowitzThe post refers to two groups.Aug 21 12:57
schestowitz|Aug 21 12:57
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 12:59
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 12:59
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 14:08
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 14:09
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 14:12
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 14:13
schestowitz 21 14:54
-TechBytesBot/ The best part, for me, starts at 11m 47s with Matthew Hoh’s contribution - in case you don’t want to listen to the whole 28m program - better that you listen to it all, though. >![avatar]( @{Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊);}<sub> - [original post](/posts/3a345310e48c0139e235002590d8e506 "2021-08-21 09:00:5Aug 21 14:54
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> | Phyllis Bennis and Matthew Hoh on Afghanistan Withdrawal - FAIRAug 21 14:54
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 15:10
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 15:10
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 15:20
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 15:20
*blitzed (~blitzed@a4b4a4wcf9s4n.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 16:27
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 16:42
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 16:42
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 16:48
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 16:49
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 18:13
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 18:13
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 18:59
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 18:59
*DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@4y5h75sqysy8k.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 20:05
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 20:28
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 20:28
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 20:31
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 20:32
*DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 20:53
schestowitz> I have been trying for a long time to paste mp4’s into my weblog usingAug 21 21:47
schestowitz> the Text page or Visual but nothing works. There are some demos onAug 21 21:47
schestowitz> YouTube but they only worked for URLS.Aug 21 21:47
schestowitz>  Aug 21 21:47
schestowitz> I would be very happy if you could come up with the answer as I am beingAug 21 21:47
schestowitz> fed some some excellent articles by a friend in mp4 format but cannotAug 21 21:47
schestowitz> post them unless I can find an URL. See  sample below:Aug 21 21:47
schestowitz> I am being fed some excellent articles by a friend in mp4 format, but I cannot post them on my weblog unless I can find them somewhere in a URL.Aug 21 21:48
schestowitz> Aug 21 21:48
schestowitz> I’ve checked demos on YouTube, but I only found how to Copy and Paste an URL. See sample below:Aug 21 21:48
schestowitzIn practice, a better approach would be to upload to some video sharing site such as YouTube, then embed that. mp4 files aren't good for Web video as opposes to locally stored files.Aug 21 21:49
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 22:15
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 22:15
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 22:16
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 22:17
*DaemonFC (~DaemonFC@4y5h75sqysy8k.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 23:04
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 23:15
*psydroid_ has quit (connection closed)Aug 21 23:15
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@pmm6a84n53eyc.irc) has joined #techbytesAug 21 23:16
*DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Aug 21 23:49

Generated by 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.