Join us now at the IRC channel.
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Jul 24 04:44 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) | Jul 24 04:44 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jul 24 05:36 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jul 24 05:36 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Jul 24 06:48 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Jul 24 06:48 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/loopydelux/status/1286086512585646082 | Jul 24 07:56 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@loopydelux: @schestowitz Heads should roll. | Jul 24 07:56 | |
| schestowitz | "Wasn't a complaint filed with the SEC against Microsoft for fraud a while back? If so, it would be valuable to follow up on."-iophk | Jul 24 07:56 |
| schestowitz | Any updates? | Jul 24 07:56 |
| schestowitz | x https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8551511/Bill-Gates-warns-multiple-doses-vaccine-against-coronavirus-necessary.html | Jul 24 07:56 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.dailymail.co.uk | Bill Gates warns that multiple doses of any vaccine against coronavirus may be necessary | Daily Mail Online | Jul 24 07:56 | |
| schestowitz | # bill sez | Jul 24 07:56 |
| schestowitz | lol, this did not age well: https://unitarypatentsystem.eu/presentation/ | Jul 24 08:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-unitarypatentsystem.eu | Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court | Presentation | Jul 24 08:26 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jul 24 09:16 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-152-237-200.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jul 24 09:16 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/07/20/the-german-upca-ratification-at-schweinsgalopp-towards-mautdebakel/?doing_wp_cron=1595588932.2712268829345703125000 | Jul 24 12:09 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | The German UPCA Ratification – at Schweinsgalopp towards Mautdebakel - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jul 24 12:09 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Sorry, I made a mistake as some sentences are repeated in the second part of my comment. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | But throwing away all what has been achieved at the EPO just because the past and present heads of the EPO are considering the latter as a playground for their pseudo managerial games would deny all the efforts put in the EPO over the years. The EPO is a true pan-European success story! Please do not forget this in spite of an understandable annoyance of what is going on at the EPO. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Peter’s solution would also mean that the EPO as we know it would be sculled. I beg to disagree. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | What has to change at the EPO is to give staff proper means of redress starting with a true internal appeals committee worthy of the name and not subordinate to the management of the Office. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | After having exhausted their internal means of redress, EPO staff should just not be left with a tribunal which is no more than an administrative body exhausting its actions by checking that valid procedures have been applied. Sometimes it is not the complaint which should be analysed as such vs. the procedure, but rather the internal procedures which give an undue advantage to the management. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | As long as the management of the EPO will be allowed to hide behind an alleged immunity, the situation at the EPO will not improve. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Peter Parker | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | July 21, 2020 at 1:21 pm | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | I feel that people are too focussed on the consitutional aspects. The UPC implementing law could potentially state that it “infringes basic law” as it is the case in some other national laws that limit certain rights mentioned in the Basic Law. What the BVerfG will probably also acknowledge is that a 2/3 majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, if achieved in the next run, cannot easily be waived away with minor formalities | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | considering that such a majority could also change the Grundgesetz itself which could be the strategy for a third try in case the next one also fails. If the Basic Law contains a reference to the UPC and the primacy of Union Law as far as the UPC is concerned, the matter should be clear. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | July 21, 2020 at 4:43 pm | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | @ Peter | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | If a 2/3 majority is achieved in the next run, you claim that it cannot easily be waived away with “minor formalities” considering that such a majority could also change the Grundgesetz itself which could be the strategy for a third try in case the next one also fails. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | In my humble opinion, it is not a “minor formality”, and the Basic Law does not contain any reference to the UPC and hence to the primacy of Union Law as far as the UPC is concerned. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | You cannot write in the Basic Law things which are not in it and do as if they were there. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | It might look as a nice suggestion to imply that supremacy of Union Law is implicit because a similar majority would be needed for such an amendment, but said amendment is simply not there. | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | Botterbloom | Jul 24 12:09 |
| schestowitz | July 22, 2020 at 8:02 am | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Pardon my French Mr Parker: This is hairraising. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | You have displayed your obsession with Parliamentary majorities here before and it is not for no reason that none of your theories have come to pass. In general, I don’t mind the typical ‘Team UPC’ wishful-thinking-hot-air clumsily declared to be legal theory, but your ideas have something deeply totalitarian to them, at least from a German perspective. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | There is nothing like the British concept of Parliamentary supremacy in German constitutional law, this is a major lesson learned from history. There are contents that are unchangeable, ‘off limits’ even to an unanimous majority by all members of Parliament. You should have noted by now, because this is where most of the UPCA constitutional complaint derived from and what will also be a very serious obstacle to future attempts to | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | ratify the UPCA in its present form. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | In your words: Any Parliamentary majority voting in favor of German UPCA ratification can easily be waived away based on the aforementioned ‘minor formalities’. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Peter Parker | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | July 22, 2020 at 3:19 pm | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | @Booterbloom | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | @Attentive Observer: | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | I understand your reservations and I agree the Basic law is either changed or it is not changed (unless the BVerfG endorses the “dynamic interpretation” of the Basic law akin to the EPO 😉 ). However, the BverfG is a consitutional organ as much as a court and will therefore likely assess all relevant circumstances of the case when/if rendering a decision. And the facts that there are 2/3 majorities in two chambers and that there w | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | long and public discussion about the matter before the votes took place will surely also play a role in their considerations. They will factor in that this is not a covert half-try by the legislator but one of the few cases in history where there is broad poltical support across all parties of a law (assuming the 2/3s in both chambers are achieved). What they will likely also factor in is that “primacy of Union law” does not mean | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | the door is opened for utter lawlessness and disregard for basic human rights. We are not talking about North Korea but about the EU that is brought more into the UPC sphere – considering that the BVerfG has been historically very open for deeper integration of Germany into the EU, it is difficult for me to see what could be so fundamentally wrong with EU law and judicative in the eyes of the BVerfG that the UPC laws in light of 2/3 | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | majorities supporiting the matter has to be stopped. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | July 22, 2020 at 7:01 pm | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Peter, | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | There is really only one way to describe your attitude and approach: wilful blindness. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | The BVerfG only remains the ultimate guardian of the Basic Law in Germany for as long as there is no way in which EU law can assume automatic supremacy (i.e. without any route by which the BVerfG can check for compliance with the Basic Law). | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Therefore, as far as I understand it, the unconditional supremacy of EU law in the UPC Agreement represents MAJOR problem from the point of view of the BVerfG. This is because that Agreement creates a new court that SUPPLANTS the role of German national courts, INCLUDING the BVerfG… which would create a situation in which the BVerfG would no longer be able to check new EU laws (that are relevant to decisions of the UPC) for | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | compliance with the Basic Law. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Whether by accident or design, the arguments of the BMJV did not adequately address this fundamental problem (not least because the TIME-LIMITED possibility of objection BY A CONTRACTING MEMBER STATE under Article 87(3) UPCA is clearly no substitute for the role currently performed by the BVefrG, in response to complaints by individuals or legal entities). Given that it is a problem that is not going to go away (as it is hard-baked | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | into the UPC Agreement), I think that Thorsten nailed the approach of the BMJV when he described the proposed ratification as being done “im Schweinsgalopp”. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | July 22, 2020 at 11:45 pm | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | @ Peter Parker | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | You seem to take for granted that a 2/3 majority will be obtained in both chambers. I would not be as sure as you are. The required majority goes well beyond the sum of MPs of the ruling coalition. I do not have the exact figures, but it requires quite a few more. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | If the MPs are correctly informed in whose interest and for whose benefit the whole UPC is, and all the risks involved by ratifying without amending Art 7(2) UPCA or the Protocol of Provisional Application which still mentions the UK, they might think twice before simply agreeing on the ratification. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | That the Ministry of Justice will only inform MPs in a “positive” way is acquired. But it is the role of the public at large to draw the attention of the MPs off all the dangers linked to a precipitated ratification. I do not know if it is possible, but a summary of the comments filed with the Ministry of Justice should at least be given to all MPs. The corresponding publication on Kluwer Blog could be a good base. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Any MP which is not blindly following party discipline should think twice before approving such a mess. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | That “the BVerG has been historically very open for deeper integration of Germany into the EU” is not to be denied, but when one sees the decision of the BVerfG with the bonds purchase of the ECB, it has probably a more differentiated view. The rapporteur of the ECB decision and the rapporteur of the UPC ratification denial is the same person. He made his point of view very clear, about supremacy of EU law in an interview in FAZ. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | The BVerG has added a Point 106 of its own volition dealing announcing a possible problem with Art 20-21 UPCA. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Ignoring this point as done in the explanatory notes for the new ratification bill, or belittling it as done by Mr Tilmann is not a wise attitude. It might backfire. This is also something which has to be made clear to the MPs. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | There is nothing “fundamentally wrong with EU law”, but the way the UPCA, which is not EU legislation, is pushed down our throats is not correct. And this seems something you are not understanding or do not want to understand as you are always coming up with your 273 majorities which are anything but reached. | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | July 24, 2020 at 8:51 am | Jul 24 12:10 |
| schestowitz | An interesting view coming from Ireland! | Jul 24 12:11 |
| schestowitz | https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=643fcd24-d3b1-4ac2-8085-9ab45b01aa72&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2020-07-24&utm_term= | Jul 24 12:11 |
| schestowitz | One thing is sure Art 7(2) UPCA remains a stumbling block. | Jul 24 12:11 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.lexology.com | The UK is on the way out. Is Ireland on the way in? - Lexology | Jul 24 12:11 | |
| schestowitz | One more nail in the coffin of the new attempt for Germany to attempt an new ratification. The common declaration under Art 33(1) VLCT wished by the Ministry of Justice seems less and less probable. | Jul 24 12:11 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 24 12:11 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/07/20/uk-withdraws-ratification-of-the-unified-patent-court-agreement/?doing_wp_cron=1595589298.9911439418792724609375 | Jul 24 12:15 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | UK withdraws ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jul 24 12:15 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | July 21, 2020 at 4:56 pm | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | The same issue applies to the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, Article 18(1) of which states that: | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | “This Protocol shall enter into force 30 days after the date on which the last of the four State Parties – France, Germany, Luxemburg and the United Kingdom – has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance approval or accession”. | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | Thus, it would seem that the PAP and PPI ought to now be pushing up the daisies alongside the Norwegian Blue. | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | One could also take the view that the wording of Article 3(1) of the PAP and Article 18(1) of the PPI makes it clear that, with respect to the UPC Agreement, the possibility of withdrawal of a Participating Member State (or at least a PMS hosting an organ of the UPC) was NOT contemplated. If this view is correct, it could be virtually impossible to revive the current UPC Agreement in a manner that is consistent with the Vienna | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | Convention. | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | No doubt the UPC’s proponents will right now be working on novel legal theories that purport to resolve this particular conundrum. The trouble as I see it is that, even if those theories do not hold water (or even pass the red face test), the only court having the power to prevent a Mautdebakel will be the BVerfG … whose focus will be the Basic Law. Thus, the challenge for adherents to the rule of law will be how to get the | Jul 24 12:15 |
| schestowitz | BVerfG to pay attention to invalidity of the UPC Agreement under international law… | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | July 21, 2020 at 8:11 pm | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Concerned, you point us to the BVerG (Germany’s Constitutional Court). The way I see it, this court is no pushover. Do you recall its recent finding, that the ECB measures to keep the Euro-Zone afloat are……wait for it…… un-Constitutional? If the Court has the cojones to tell the ECB where to get off, it surely can hold its nerve long enough to put the UPCA to sleep, and out of its miserable twilight existence. | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | July 22, 2020 at 11:03 am | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Max, | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | I have no doubt that the BVerfG is perfectly capable of reaching decisions that are unpopular in political circles. However, that was not my concern. | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | The point that I was trying to make is that the most recent problems with the UPC Agreement point to invalidity under INTERnational law, whereas the BVerfG will only be concerned with problems under Germany’s national (Basic) law. It is possible that there will be a way to join the dots between the two. However, it is not clear to me whether it will be simple to join those dots. In particular, it may well be challenging to | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | do so in a manner that is capable of persauding the BVerfG to void any law that purports to ratify the UPCA. | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | July 21, 2020 at 4:59 pm | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Dear Convention Watchdog, | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Well done! | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | I fear we will have to wait even longer as expected! | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | May be time to rethink the whole thing. There are enough drawbacks, that it would be wise to think out a better system. | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Reply | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | July 24, 2020 at 8:47 am | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | An interesting view coming from Ireland! | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=643fcd24-d3b1-4ac2-8085-9ab45b01aa72&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2020-07-24&utm_term= | Jul 24 12:16 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.lexology.com | The UK is on the way out. Is Ireland on the way in? - Lexology | Jul 24 12:16 | |
| schestowitz | One thing is sure Art 7(2) remains a stumbling block | Jul 24 12:16 |
| schestowitz | " | Jul 24 12:16 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!