Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz__ | > I disagree. This country will survive and thrive again and never before. A COVID-19 vaccine will be discovered, but our country will be much changed from fighting this virus. Less social contact. Movies and restaurants traffic will decline. social contact will lessen. Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Tele-conferencing will be the new normal. | Mar 22 04:27 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz_log | "A COVID-19 vaccine will be discovered, but our country will be much changed from fighting this virus. Less social contact. Movies and restaurants traffic will decline. social contact will lessen. Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Tele-conferencing will be the new normal."-Relative | Mar 22 04:29 |
| schestowitz__ | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/20/federal-constitutional-court-voids-the-german-upca-ratification-law/#comments | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | The other deeper legal problems raised by Stjerna were not addressed. | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | So the other problems are still there. | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Federal Constitutional Court voids the German UPCA Ratification Law - Kluwer Patent Blog | Mar 22 04:47 | |
| schestowitz__ | Joeri Beetz | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 11:15 AM | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | “However, this decision also means that at least the FCC will most likely not establish unsurmountable hurdles against the establishment of the UPCA. Negotiations about the future shape of the UPCA can therefore be started or resumed without a further sword of Damocles hanging above the negotiators’ heads.” | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | Where is the above based on? I can’t find anything in the English summary that would suggest this. Is there a more detailed German version somewhere, maybe? | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | Joeri Beetz | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 11:18 AM | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | Found the decision. It’s in your earlier link. Thanks. | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive Observer | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 12:02 PM | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | I fear that the situation created by the decision of the FCC is not merely a problem of resending the bill through the German Parliament. There is more to it, and the FCC has taken the easiest way to deal the UPCA as it stands a blow. | Mar 22 04:47 |
| schestowitz__ | First of all, all those claiming that the complaint will be dismissed at once have been blatantly contradicted, and they were a lot. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | I can agree at a pinch that the FCC “will most likely not establish unsurmountable hurdles against the establishment of the UPCA”, but some of the conclusions are going quite far. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC made nevertheless one thing clear: “The Agreement is open exclusively to EU Member States.” So all the various people thinking that post Brexit UK, and possibly even more non-EU states could participate, have received a clear rebuff. All explanations of Mr Tillmann that C 1/09 did not close the door to non-EU members are void. The same goes for the hopes expressed by EPLIT. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC made clear that the UPCA does not result from a “unanimous decision of the Council and ratification by the Member States”. It adds even that “Until now, the political will has been lacking in this respect.” | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC also noted that it “is because the necessary unanimity could neither be achieved for the way outlined in the Treaties by Art. 262 TFEU nor for an amendment pursuant to Art. 48 TEU.” | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | That the FCC endorses the concept of enhanced cooperation is one thing. But does it bring something to add an extra layer of jurisdiction not applicable to all member states of the EU. Poland has said no, and the Czech Republic as well. In Hungary there are also constitutional problems. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Without being applicable to all EU member states the UPC is a nuisance, the more so that it can interpret the EPC in way different from the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. Another source of problems! | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC also noted that “A significant part of the Member States’ jurisdiction over private and administrative legal matters of economic significance is conferred to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court by Art. 32 of the Agreement.” This cannot be adopted lightly, and it is amazing that it needed a decision of the FCC to show how far the UPCA interferes heavily with national legal systems. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | That a minority of judges see a problem which might block further European integration is understandable, and is to be respected. However such far reaching decisions should only obtained with an ample majority. It is not enough in such situations that “decision-making with narrow majorities must also be possible.” | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Let’s hope that the time needed to reconsider the UPCA, and also to solve the problems with the London section of the Central (sic) Division, will help to come up with something acceptable to all EU member states. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | There are so many different problems to be dealt with, and it should be the opportunity to rewrite the whole UPCA. I just name a few: | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | –In spite of the statements before the House of Lords Committee that the UPC is for SMEs, it is clear that this is not the case. If it is for SMEs it should also show it with more than lip service. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | –Article 10 of the statute which allows a judge to be removed from office without giving him means of redress has to be amended | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | –The Rules of Procedure, at least the first version of those should also be part of the ratification process. They should not be concocted by a self-co-opted group of people, as they also interfere heavily with national legislation. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Last but not least, it should not be forgotten that barely a third of applications at the EPO stem from EU member states, so it is not difficult to see that the UPCA might turn out to be the opposite of its alleged aim. Why were the USA so keen that UK should stay in the UPC? | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | The UPCA is not dead but it needs a long stay in intensive care. I would say a new Form of Complicated Corona virus hit it? | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | As a new ratification process appears necessary, be it only due to Art 7(2) UPCA, all citizen should write to their MPs to warn them that it is not just for the sake of European integration that such a treaty has been signed, but for the sake of people with deep pockets and some of them wanting to fill them as well. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Even by excerpts on Twitter! | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | LightBlue | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 2:58 PM | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | AO, I seem to recall suggesting that the only issue they would be considering was whether the vote in parliament met the formal requirements. This was met with a certain amount of invective to the effect that I didn’t know what I was talking about. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive Observer | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 3:46 PM | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Dear Light Blue, | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Lets be clear, the FCC took the easiest way to deal with the complaint, the vote in Parliament. This avoided the court to deal with the more political aspects which would have been much more delicate to decide upon. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | It also does not mean that those grounds could not be fatal to the UPCA. It is also for this reason that a first judgement about the EPO was denied as not being enough substantiated. Now we still have four complaints before the FCC about the EPO and the independence of the boards. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | As it stands, the UPCA has no valid reason d’être. Either there is something for all EU member states or for none. But adding a layer of case law is not justified if it is not applicable to all EU member states. Enhanced cooperation is just a fig leave for pushing something which is only of interest for big companies with deep pockets and their helpers in the legal profession. This is a matter of fact and not of opinion. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Before anything is decided anew and ratified a second time, the CJEU should be asked for an opinion. This was also one of the big problems of the UPCA and its promoters who staunchly refused the CJEU to have a look at it, merely claiming that the whole treaty was in accordance with EU law. In this respect I agree with Concerned Observer. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Even by excerpts on Twitter! | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Concerned observer | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz_log | ...first comment from Jan Verbist | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz_log | "The other deeper legal problems raised by Stjerna were not addressed. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz_log | "So the other problems are still there." | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz_log | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/20/federal-constitutional-court-voids-the-german-upca-ratification-law/#comments #unifiedpatentcourt #unitarypatent | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 2:02 PM | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | An interesting decision. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Is this the end for the UPC? We shall see. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Whilst the more substantive grounds of the complaint were held inadmissible, it appears that the FCC has not provided conclusive rulings on those grounds – just assertions that the grounds were not sufficiently substantiated. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Federal Constitutional Court voids the German UPCA Ratification Law - Kluwer Patent Blog | Mar 22 04:48 | |
| schestowitz__ | In any event, it appears that the most interesting aspects of the ruling are to be found in the commentary relating to areas where there is an interaction between German law, EU law and the UPC Agreement. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Firstly, it is interesting to learn that the FCC is of the view that an international treaty that breaches EU law does not necessarily lead to a breach of the Basic Law. The FCC therefore appears to have decided that it is up to the CJEU to take action in this scenario. We shall just have to wait to see how the CJEU will tackle this point. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | Secondly, the FCC is of the opinion that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is not applicable to the UPC… on the grounds that the UPC “is to be established as an independent supranational institution beyond the European Union”. | Mar 22 04:48 |
| schestowitz__ | This strikes me as perhaps the most significant part of the ruling. This is because the FCC seems to take the view that a court that will take over (from national courts) the task of interpreting and applying EU law, and whose rulings will be binding in EU Member States, is a “supranational institution beyond the European Union”. Frankly, it is difficult to square this interpretation with Article 1 UPCA. It would also appear to | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | inevitably lead to the conclusion that the UPC – as currently constituted – threatens the unity and integrity of the EU legal system. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | For the latter reason alone, it appears that it would be sensible to start again from scratch with regard to the creation of a pan-European patents court. This is because to press on with a court that is a “supranational institution beyond the European Union” would merely invite the CJEU to bring the whole house of cards down by ruling it to be incompatible with EU law. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MN | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 2:19 PM | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Last paragraph: | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | “Soweit Anhaltspunkte dafür vorliegen, dass die Festschreibung eines unbedingten Vorrangs des Unionsrechts in Art. 20 EPGÜ gegen Art. 20 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 79 Abs. 3 GG verstößt … abschließenden Entscheidung kann vorliegend jedoch abgesehen werden, weil sich die Nichtigkeit des EPGÜ-ZustG bereits aus anderen Gründen ergibt.” | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | I read this to state that the unrestricted primacy of Union law under to Art.20 UPCA would most likely NOT pass constitutional muster. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Hence, even if UPCA’s implementation legislation would be submitted again and pass this time with the required majority, viability would still be doubtful. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Kay | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 4:39 PM | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Dear MN, | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | I also read this sentence as meaning they refrained from deciding on this matter because the law passing German agreement to the UPCA is unconstitutional for other reasons anyway. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | So, there may be other roadblocks, but for reasons the GCC has not given fully reasoned opinions and decisions on them…. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | So much for the clear legal analysis by many UPC proponents. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | And the reasoning and decision finding of the CJEU is even more convoluted… | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | I’m stacking popcorn for the time I hear this story being restarted or renegotiated. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Thanks for pointing this out. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Fragender | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 4:08 PM | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | As an examiner I am certainly not an expert in constitutional law. To me it reads a bit, as if the BVerfG has spelled out, what it would expect from Mr. Stjerna, should the bill be passed again, with the sufficient majority. After all, in most respects the judges simply held the complaint inadmissible because of insufficient substantiation, and then the they wrote what is missing. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | And I don’t see, how the bill could pass a vote again, with London and the UK written expressly in the Agreement… | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Just my two cents… I expect I won’t get an invitation for an interview regarding my application from the UPC soon. 😉 | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive Observer | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 6:48 PM | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Should you be an examiner at the EPO, I doubt that you will be allowed to be at the same time part of the pool of judges of the UPC. You will have to choose between one and the other. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | All members of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO having filed an application for a post of judge at the UPC never got a reply, not even an acknowledgement of receipt! | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | There is also a problem which was not broached in the complaint before the FCC: can you be part-time judge at the UPC and part-time lawyer in a law firm or part-time examiner at the EPO? Honestly, I have some doubts. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | You might indeed be waiting a long time for an invitation! | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MaxDrei | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 7:02 PM | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive, on your doubts about the “problem” of part-time judges, here is a Link to another patent law blog | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/03/reading-through-opinion.html | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | See Comment 2.2 in the thread. It seems that the judge is a big cheese at the leading patent law firm of Allen & Overy. But nobody seems to be troubled by that. | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive Observer | Mar 22 04:50 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentlyo.com | UK Patent Law Primer: Reading through Judge Stone's New Opinion | Mar 22 04:50 | |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 10:20 PM | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Dear Max Drei, | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | It might be something acceptable on the other side of the Channel but I find it choking that a solicitor becomes a judge and at the same time stays a solicitor. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Nothing against changing to the other side, in either direction, but it is not possible to serve two masters at the same time! That a judge becomes a lawyer is OK, but he cannot stay as judge! | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | There is a famous well esteemed Dutch judge who opened a law firm, but to my knowledge he never sat as a judge afterwards. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | This is a particularity of English law we do not need on the continent! | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | MaxDrei | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 11:59 PM | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Well, Attentive, I hear you and can appreciate your revulsion but let’s discuss it a bit longer to see exactly where you see the mischief. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Patent attorneys in private practice are often asked by their clients to render an opinion on infringement and validity. One can ask the EPO for an opinion on validity. Examiners at the UK Patent Office routinely hand down Decisions on infringement and validity when asked by parties in a patent dispute, and then return to their day jobs, examining applications. When a court passes judgement, what else is the judge doing but giving an | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | opinion on infringement and validity. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | And if you were patent owner or accused infringer in a 50:50 case of infringement and validity, who would you want to write the opinion on infringement and validity: a greenhorn judge straight out of law school or the Head of IP Litigation at a top London law firm. And what if the court is over-loaded. Justice delayed is justice denied. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | So, I can see the advantages of parachuting in a “Deputy Judge” but can’t see the harm, or the conflict, which you fear. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | LightBlue | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 21, 2020 AT 9:37 AM | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | I believe it is quite normal for patent attorneys to act as technical judges in the Swiss patent court. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | GLB | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 21, 2020 AT 10:56 AM | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | We already have it on the continent (alas), for instance in Austria and Switzerland. IAM writes about one of those servants of two masters : “Physical chemist Tobias B. stands out, for sure – he’s a smart guy, and it’s certainly no coincidence that he has become the Second Ordinary Judge at the Federal Patent Court. He has an excellent knowledge of the procedural aspects of patent litigation – an all-around great attorney.†| Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Fragender | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 21, 2020 AT 10:47 AM | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | No, I am not at the EPO, thankfully. | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | Regarding part-time judges: In German law (cp. § 79 Abs. 4 ZPO) it is stated, that a judge can not act as a representative before “his” court (which would usually happen only in pro-bono cases or representing family members or the like). | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 04:50 |
| schestowitz__ | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/20/reactions-to-ruling-fcc-in-case-unified-patent-court-positive-and-great-disappointment/#comments | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | “Although it is unfortunate that the ratification act has been declared void, it is good news for the UPC that the other complaints have been declared inadmissible, which means that we now do have certainty on all issues raised before the German Constitutional Court.” | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | The statement by Mr. Pors seems to me overly optimistic. The BVerfG has not ruled, that the issues raised are inadmissible per se. Rather it held them inadmissible because of insufficient substantiation. To me this leaves (most of) the questions open – unless constitutional experts find definitive hints in the wording of the ruling (which I would expect needs more than just a few hours…). | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | And how could the Agreement be ratified by Germany now, after the UK is no longer a member of the EU and London and the UK are hard-wired in it? Would anyone risk a bet, that the necessary re-negotiations would be limited purely to the replacement of London and the UK in the text? | Mar 22 05:02 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Reactions to ruling FCC in case Unified Patent Court: 'positive' and 'great disappointment' - Kluwer Patent Blog | Mar 22 05:02 | |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Attentive Observer | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 6:37 PM | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | The reactions following the decision of the FCC can be summarised with for some the glass being half full, and for other being half empty. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | One thing is nevertheless very clear. The UPCA is only opened to EU member states. That has a direct effect on Art 7(2) UPCA. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | I fail to see that the FCC has decided for good that there is “certainty on all issues raised before the German Constitutional Court.” They were dismissed for formal reasons, but certainly not for substantial reasons. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | In my opinion, the court did not say “that the appointment of judges by an administrative council appears legitimate”. It simply said that the German representative has a veto right. That does not imply that it is as such legitimate. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | The other express their disappointment that it will take a long time to reschedule a vote in the German Parliament. I cannot see the German Parliament recasting a vote for a treaty without any changes in Art 7(2) UPCA, and this point is a problem which is not easy to decide. Too many national interests are at stake. Furthermore there are more urgent problems to be dealt with that the interest of a bunch of big industries and lawyer | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | firms. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Sorry for the Chairman of EPLIT, but the issue decided is not a formal one. It is a fundamental issue, and the haste by which the UPCA was driven through the institutions has now backfired. It is good so, since it will give the possibility to rethink the whole process. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | For a start, now the UK has left, do we need so much resemblance of the UPC with the UK litigation system? Could we not go along a bit more slowly and carefully? | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | That the UPC will be delayed is certain. That this delay may not be favourable to it is also certain. I will not claim that the UPC is dead, but severely injured and the injury inflicted by the Brexit and the decision of the FCC might prove to be fatal to it. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | By the time the problem of Art 7(2) is settled, there will have been the election of another German Parliament and the issue of ratification might take a totally different turn. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Enhanced cooperation might be an aim worth pursuing, but subsidiarity is also an aspect which should play a role. In view of the few really supranational litigations do we really need such a treaty which only serves some interests and is certainly detrimental to a lot of others, starting with SMEs and European industry at large? | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Enhanced cooperation excluding those not willing to be bulldozed down, I think here of smaller countries and their fragile industry, as well as the SMEs, is something the EU cannot afford. Either there is a EU patent valid for all EU member states, but simply adding a layer of case law for some of them, with all uncertainties going with it, is not an aim worth pursuing. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | To hear in another blog that it might be worth trying to “draft a text that would make it possible for European Economic Area countries and perhaps even other countries to join” is simply showing that this person, another lawyer, who is also fiercely again technical judges (UPC conference in Munich in 2017), has not bothered reading the decision of the FCC. C 1/09 was already clear in this respect and now it is even clearer: it is | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | only open to EU member states. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | To sum it up: if it is absolutely necessary to have a supra-national jurisdiction for patent matters, which I doubt, it could be envisaged, but then its reach should be over the whole of the EU, and not only in part of it. We should not forget that this selectiveness was the birth defect of the UPC. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | It goes without saying that any attempt to create a supranational jurisdiction in patent matters in the EU should be submitted to the CJEU for opinion. It should be avoided to create something which might be killed by the CJEU at the first opportunity. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Even by excerpts on Twitter! | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | Peter Parker | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 21, 2020 AT 10:05 AM | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | The judges at the BVerfG often give some hints in an orbiter dictum to the lower courts if they feel that it helps a case to move more swiftly in the judicial system – maybe to avoid to have to deal with the same matter on a different issue a few months later.Just read two dozen or so of their decisions dealing with day-to-day matters and you will see this. As this was a high profile case due to the involvement of the Federal | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | President, the Government, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, I think that they would have given also in this case some stronger hints if they believed that the other issues have merit but are simply not substantiated enough – in particular as all the arguments in the case are public facts and the judges could connect the dots themselves, even if the complaint did not specify them detailed enough. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/20/the-german-law-ratifying-the-agreement-on-a-unified-patent-court-is-void/#comments | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | I fear that the situation created by the decision of the FCC is not merely a problem of resending the bill through the German Parliament. There is more to it, and the FCC has taken the easiest way to deal the UPCA as it stands a blow. | Mar 22 05:02 |
| schestowitz__ | First of all, all those claiming that the complaint will be dismissed at once have been blatantly contradicted, and they were a lot. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | The German Law Ratifying the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is Void - Kluwer Patent Blog | Mar 22 05:03 | |
| schestowitz__ | I can agree that the FCC did not say that the UPCA is as such unconstitutional. One should however realise that they took the easiest part of the complaint to decide upon. It was thus not necessary for the court to say anything else, and especially to look into the other aspects of the complaint. However, some of the conclusions are going quite far. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC made one thing clear: “The Agreement is open exclusively to EU Member States.” So all the various people thinking that post Brexit UK, and possibly even more non-EU states could participate, have received a clear rebuff. All explanations of Mr Tillmann that C 1/09 did not close the door to non-EU members are void. The same goes for the hopes expressed by EPLIT. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC also made clear that the UPCA does not result from a “unanimous decision of the Council and ratification by the Member States”. It adds even that “Until now, the political will has been lacking in this respect.” | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC also noted that it “is because the necessary unanimity could neither be achieved for the way outlined in the Treaties by Art. 262 TFEU nor for an amendment pursuant to Art. 48 TEU.” | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | That the FCC endorses the concept of enhanced cooperation is one thing. But does it bring something to add an extra layer of jurisdiction not applicable to all member states of the EU? Poland has said no, and the Czech Republic as well. In Hungary there are also constitutional problems. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | Without being applicable to all EU member states the UPC is a nuisance, the more so that it can interpret the EPC in way different from the Boards of Appeal of the EPO. Another source of problems! | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | The FCC also noted that “A significant part of the Member States’ jurisdiction over private and administrative legal matters of economic significance is conferred to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court by Art. 32 of the Agreement.” This cannot be adopted lightly, and it is amazing that it needed a decision of the FCC to show how far the UPCA interferes heavily with national legal systems. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | That a minority of judges see a problem which might block further European integration is understandable, and is to be respected. However such far reaching decisions should only obtained with an ample majority. It is not enough in such situations that “decision-making with narrow majorities must also be possible.” | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | Let’s hope that the time needed to reconsider the UPCA, and also to solve the problems with the London section of the Central (sic) Division, will help to come up with something acceptable to all EU member states. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | There are so many different problems to be dealt with, and it should be the opportunity to rewrite the whole UPCA. I just name a few: | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | – In spite of the statements before the House of Lords Committee that the UPC is for SMEs, it is clear that this is not the case. If it is for SMEs it should also show it with more than lip service. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | – Article 10 of the statute which allows a judge to be removed from office without giving him means of redress has to be amended | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | – The Rules of Procedure, at least the first version of those should also be part of the ratification process. They should not be concocted by a self-co-opted group of people, as they also interfere heavily with national legislation. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | Last but not least, it should not be forgotten that barely a third of applications at the EPO stem from EU member states, so it is not difficult to see that the UPCA might turn out to be the opposite of its alleged aim. Why were the USA so keen that UK should stay in the UPC? | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | The UPCA is not dead but it needs a long stay in intensive care. I would say a new Form of Complicated Corona virus hit it? | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | As a new ratification process appears necessary, be it only due to Art 7(2) UPCA, all citizen should write to their MPs to warn them that it is not just for the sake of European integration that such a treaty has been signed, but for the sake of people with deep pockets and some of them wanting to fill them as well. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!! Even by excerpts on Twitter! | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | REPLY | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | MaxDrei | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | MARCH 20, 2020 AT 6:53 PM | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | On the point that the main customers of the UPC, enforcing their rights against the competition, will be Big Corp and non-European rights holders, what can we learn from the EU’s Registered Design regime? | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | This was another well-meaning Brussels project to give domestic European industry more help in staving off competition from non-European design right holders. I suspect that the opposite is what we have today, but I have no evidence. Has the EU Commission learned anything from the ways in which its Reg Des regime has worked out in practice? | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | It is said that “We live and learn”. But do we? Scientists and doctors facing COVID-19 say they are. One hopes that our law-makers do so too. | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Mar 22 05:03 |
| schestowitz__ | > There is only a minimal number of comments. I hope that the people | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | > there do understand what has been at stake and the relevance of the | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | > decision. | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Based on the 3 comments I saw there hours ago, it's better to focus on comments in Team UPC's blogs. I will survey them later, but so many people wrote about it already...... that I think it would be too time-consuming to be worth it. | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | I've pasted some of these comments in the IRC channels. Lots of dissent against the lies! GOOD! | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | MS Vice President: "If you’re going to kill someone, there isn’t much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger." | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | Wonder where Allchin is today. He lives near the epicenter. | Mar 22 06:49 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> Phoronix is a useful site, but the owner is one of many who is targeted. | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> Yes, they did the "Sexist" thing on him to cancel him about 7 years ago. | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> http://techrights.org/2019/08/20/phoronix-demonised/ | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> Lxer never links to him since then, no matter how important the article. | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> Someone tries to do this to me now: | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | >> | Mar 22 07:04 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Why We Support Phoronix (Whereas Some Others Do Not) | Techrights | Mar 22 07:04 | |
| schestowitz__ | >> http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/36663/ | Mar 22 07:04 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lxer.com | LXer: I see Schestowitz is still publishing click bait nonsense: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is Apparently, as Per Latest IRS Disclosure, About 95% Companies-Funded | Mar 22 07:04 | |
| schestowitz__ | > Oh. The "charged language" charge. I suppose if one were to get | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | > dragged into that bullshit the card to play in counter would be "racist" | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | > and "tone policing". But best not to go down that path. They're after | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | > you because you support software freedom and have done a lot in that | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | > area by countering attempts at pushing software patents into the EU. | Mar 22 07:04 |
| schestowitz__ | > Everythng they do is a distraction from that. | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | Yes, I know. | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | I dumped the above link only onto IRC | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | I think figosdev saw it there, inspiring him to do yesterday's article | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | I quite frankly lose a lot of time trying to keep abreast of these attacks | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | I learn from Wikileaks the cost of ignoring these... | Mar 22 07:05 |
| schestowitz__ | http://techrights.org/2020/03/02/verbal-vs-physical/ | Mar 22 07:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | Free Speech Isn’t Violence and Richard Stallman Isn’t an Offender (Nor Are His Supporters) | Techrights | Mar 22 07:05 | |
| schestowitz__ | >>>> Phoronix is a useful site, but the owner is one of many who is targeted. | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> Yes, they did the "Sexist" thing on him to cancel him about 7 years ago. | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> http://techrights.org/2019/08/20/phoronix-demonised/ | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> Lxer never links to him since then, no matter how important the article. | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> Someone tries to do this to me now: | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | >>> http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/36663/ | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > I've read through to the bottom. They are simply setting up a strawman | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > by misrepresenting your views. | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/ | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | > | Mar 22 07:07 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-effectiviology.com | Strawman Arguments: What They Are and How to Counter Them – Effectiviology | Mar 22 07:07 | |
| schestowitz__ | > Lynch mobs are fine with keeping it fact-free, as you see. | Mar 22 07:07 |
| schestowitz__ | http://techrights.org/2020/02/28/opposing-stallman/ | Mar 22 07:07 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fallacyfiles.org | Logical Fallacy: Straw Man | Mar 22 07:07 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | People Who Oppose Stallman Can be Rude and They Pick on People Who Merely Defend Stallman’s Role at FSF | Techrights | Mar 22 07:08 | |
| tedbox | https://jpop.club/objects/57b1d35a-f931-4e40-99c2-98239088dfc1 | Mar 22 07:17 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jpop.club | Pleroma | Mar 22 07:17 | |
| tedbox | "done" | Mar 22 07:17 |
| tedbox | " Kinda thought that article was going to be from 2001. Then I went to the site and thought holy cow this website has to be from 1998. My eyes hurt now. I feel like all the guys on the freeway in "Deadpool"." | Mar 22 07:19 |
| *libertybox_ (~schestowi@host81-154-171-66.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Mar 22 08:18 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@host81-154-171-66.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Mar 22 08:18 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Changing host) | Mar 22 08:18 | |
| *acer-box__ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Mar 22 08:18 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Mar 22 08:21 | |
| *libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 22 08:21 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Mar 22 21:31 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-171-66.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Mar 22 21:31 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Mar 22 21:41 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Mar 22 21:41 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!