●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Friday, March 26, 2021 ●●

● Mar 26
[00:16]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[00:16]		*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
[00:16]		*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
[00:17]		*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
● Mar 26
[01:23]	schestowitz	been a looong day, lots in IRC, just finished my shift at work. I think RMS and us are safe and good now. Well done!
● Mar 26
[02:26]		*genr8_ (~genr8_@unaffiliated/genbtc) has joined #techbytes
● Mar 26
[03:42]		*kermit_ has quit (Changing host)
[03:42]		*kermit_ (sid393220@pdpc/supporter/bronze/kermit) has joined #techbytes
[03:42]		*kermit_ is now known as kermit
● Mar 26
[04:06]		*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes
[04:06]		*GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
● Mar 26
[05:49]		*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
● Mar 26
[06:22]		*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes
● Mar 26
[09:59]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616741176354#c9051976394094714965
● Mar 26
[10:00]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat
[10:00]	schestowitz	"
[10:00]	schestowitz	Has anyone noticed that the register
[10:00]	schestowitz	https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP04758381&lng=en&tab=main
[10:00]	schestowitz	indicates that oral proceedings have already been scheduled March 16, 2021, i.e. even before the issuance of the written decision by the BoA?
[10:00]	schestowitz	"
[10:00]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-register.epo.org | European Patent Register
[10:00]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616741176354#c9051976394094714965
[10:00]	schestowitz	"
[10:00]	schestowitz	Has anyone noticed that the register
[10:00]	schestowitz	https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP04758381&lng=en&tab=main
[10:00]	schestowitz	indicates that oral proceedings have already been scheduled March 16, 2021, i.e. even before the issuance of the written decision by the BoA?
[10:00]	schestowitz	"
[10:01]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616702197711#c3339987978776566441
[10:01]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat
[10:01]	schestowitz	"
[10:01]	schestowitz	Continued:
[10:01]	schestowitz	In addition to the President of the Boards of Appeal, namely Mr C. Josefsson, further members of the Boards of Appeal participated in the formulation of the new Art. 15a RPBA,; the panel of Board of Appeal members included the following three members:
[10:01]	schestowitz	T. Beckedorf
[10:01]	schestowitz	G. Eliasson
[10:01]	schestowitz	A. Ritzka.
[10:01]	schestowitz	Reference is made to: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html
[10:01]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat
[10:01]	schestowitz	It would seem that the new regulation, granting sweeping powers to the Boards of Appeal to curtail a partys rights of in person advocacy, is evidently not lawful. This is to be understood from the decision of one of the Boards of Appeal themselves, in case T 1807/15: on 15 March 2021, the Board of Appeal in question elected to test the legality of the new RPBA and have this reviewed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, this being the
[10:01]	schestowitz	highest instance at the European Patent office.
[10:01]	schestowitz	Attention is directed to: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20513464/t1807-15.pdf
[10:01]	schestowitz	The question which has been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is:
[10:01]	schestowitz	Is the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference compatible with the right to oral proceedings as ebshrined in Article 116(1) EPC if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference?
[10:01]	schestowitz	This question is to be discussed and subsequently decided on 28 May 2021:
[10:02]	schestowitz	https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5Z25KDG3310DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false.
[10:02]	schestowitz	The Enlarged Board of Appeal is composed of the following members:
[10:02]	schestowitz	C. Josefsson (=President of the Boards of Appeal and Chairman in the present case)
[10:02]	schestowitz	I. Beckedorf
[10:02]	schestowitz	W. van der Eijk (rapporteur)
[10:02]	schestowitz	R. Arnold (external member) (i.e. Lord Justice Arnold)
[10:02]	schestowitz	E. Chatzikos (external member)
[10:02]	schestowitz	G. Eliasson
[10:02]	schestowitz	A. Ritza.
[10:02]	schestowitz	See:
[10:02]	schestowitz	https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5Z24IMQ6217DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false.
[10:02]	schestowitz	The concerns being raised and expressed here are not related to the legality of the newly proposed Art. 15a of the RPBA, but about the very strange fact that the panel of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is composed of a majority of members who themselves proposed and sanctioned the new Art. 15a of the RPBA. In addition to the President of the Boards of Appeal, who is also acting as the Chairman of the Enlarged Board in this case, the
[10:02]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-register.epo.org | European Patent Register
[10:02]	schestowitz	Enlarged Board also includes the three members mentioned above:
[10:02]	schestowitz	T. Beckedorf
[10:02]	schestowitz	G. Eliasson
[10:02]	schestowitz	A. Ritzka,
[10:02]	schestowitz	One can only assume, given their roles in drafting and implementing the new Art. 15a RPBA, that they do not represent unbiased members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. With this constellation, serious questions must be raised as to the likely impartiality of the members tasked with making this determination of the law.
[10:02]	schestowitz	Just imagine, by way of comparison:
[10:02]	schestowitz	 Four Federal Constitutional Court judges (including the President of the Federal Constitutional Court) write a draft bill, e.g. concerning a change of the rules on oral proceedings in the Federal Constitutional Court Act (cf. 25 BVerfGG).
[10:02]	schestowitz	 The Bundestag or Parliament, respectively, passes a corresponding law in accordance with the draft bill.
[10:02]	schestowitz	 A constitutional complaint is lodged against this and the four constitutional judges who wrote/supported the bill - and another three constitutional judges - then decide on its legality.
[10:02]	schestowitz	Such legal proceedings would, quite rightly, lead to public outcry. Such a review procedure cannot possibly be considered as being in line with the general principles and rule of law.
[10:02]	schestowitz	tbc....
[10:02]	schestowitz	"
[10:03]	schestowitz	http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616696164186#c3113280168878249284
[10:03]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat
[10:03]	schestowitz	"
[10:03]	schestowitz	I don't understand from where the Board has drawn the notion that "a prerequisite of oral proceedings is that the parties can see the members of the board and vice versa". Why is sight necessary? Elsewhere it is argued that a crucial aspect of oral proceedings is that they allow an essentially simultaneous exchange of views, unlike written correspondence. With that, I agree. But telephone conference would also allow a simultaneous
[10:03]	schestowitz	exchange of views. Why is visual communication necessary?
[10:03]	schestowitz	The internal logic of the decision is completely non-existent.
[10:03]	schestowitz	"
● Mar 26
[13:27]	schestowitz	https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1375226937061302274
[13:27]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @tnoisette La FSFE devrait d'abord balayer devant sa porte https://t.co/RKkVuyVkGS
[13:27]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> techrights.org | Court Case: Matthias Kirschner, FSFE Women and Volunteers Face Modern Day Slavery | Techrights
● Mar 26
[17:46]	schestowitz	Re: FSF accepted IBM donation money
[17:46]	schestowitz	> https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1375377588181467137
[17:46]		-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @jwildeboer @adymitruk That's at least worth a clarification from FSF's side.
[17:46]	schestowitz	>
[17:46]	schestowitz	> And the first supporter of software patents in the US is...IBM
● Mar 26
[18:22]		*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[18:22]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
[18:32]		*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
[18:34]		*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
● Mar 26
[22:10]		*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[22:10]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
[22:16]		*rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
[22:18]		*liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
● Mar 26
[23:53]		*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[23:53]		*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)