Join us now at the IRC channel.
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 26 01:14 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 01:14 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 02:10 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Nov 26 02:11 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 02:15 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 02:16 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 03:22 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 26 03:23 | |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Nov 26 03:28 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 03:31 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 03:32 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 04:31 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 04:31 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 04:31 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 04:32 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 05:53 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 05:54 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Nov 26 05:54 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 05:55 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/24/the-epos-ride-from-patentamt-to-oktroybureau/#comments | Nov 26 06:42 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | The EPO's Ride from Patentamt to Oktroybureau - Kluwer Patent Blog | Nov 26 06:42 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 06:42 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Nov 26 06:42 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 24, 2020 AT 5:34 PM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | For years, professional representatives were told by the Boards of Appeal that Articles 113 and 116 EPC did not provide any absolute right to VICO oral proceedings. So what has changed? And where is the legal basis for what is undoubtedly a novel interpretation of the EPC, namely that Articles 113 and 116 EPC now will not provide any absolute right to in-person oral proceedings? | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | As with the Decisions of the EPO President in connection with VICOs for examination and opposition oral proceedings, this is nothing other than law-making by executive decree. The fact that the AC is involved in passing any new articles of the RPBA does not help either. This is because they are an ADMINISTRATIVE Council, not a legislative body … though, based upon the decision in G 3/19, one could be forgiven for feeling that the line | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | between the two has been somewhat blurred, if not entirely destroyed. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | And to which judicial instance can you complain if you believe that a decision of the Boards of Appeal to conduct VICO oral proceedings infringes your right to a fair trial (according to Article 6 ECHR)? To my knowledge, unless there is a change to the statutory definitions of the grounds for submitting petitions for review, the Enlarged Board is almost certain to dismiss any such complaints as inadmissible … which strikes me as being | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | contrary to the principles of justice as enshrined in the ECHR. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Looking forward to the beach and the daiquiris | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 24, 2020 AT 7:04 PM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | While I’m also somewhat miffed about the manner and language of the President’s announcement (“access to justice”…hah), I must also say that this is an inevitable development, which should be seized by the patent profession as an opportunity rather than a hassle. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Having numerous friends in both towns, I enjoy trips to Munich and The Hague as much as anybody else, but it’s undeniable that all that travel to attend oral proceedings comes at a cost, first of all to the client, but also to the climate and to our personal lives and families. It also gives an unfair advantage to the parties and representatives located close to the two cities, to the detriment of those living elsewhere, in particular | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | in less-developed regions of Europe. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Moreover, while videoconferencing has its limits, properly used it could also open new opportunities to present a case even more clearly and persuasively than in person, using e.g. audiovisual tools, computer animations, etc. It will require learning and adaptation, but any good professional should be ready to learn and adapt to new circumstances. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Anyway, I look forward to be able to attend oral proceedings in the future from any of the sunniest islands belonging to EPO member states… | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 11:25 AM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Hmmn. Nobody is saying that the OPTION to use VICOs before the Boards is unwelcome. Indeed, many patent professionals have been crying out for years for the Boards to make this option available. The problem comes when VICOs are mandatory, or where they can be imposed against the wishes of a party to the proceedings. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | It is understandable that the Boards would want to have a way to deal with parties that refuse their consent to VICOs for purely tactical (delaying) purposes. However, with any luck, the end of the pandemic is now in sight. This means that soon, most likely before the end of 2021, the refusal of a party to grant consent to VICOs will not result in the date of oral proceedings being pushed back. Also, in the long run, it is perfectly | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | possible that a significant number of parties will VOLUNTARILY request VICOs – especially if they agree with you regarding the relative advantages of that mode of conducting oral proceedings. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | It therefore reasonable to ask why now, when we are potentially on the cusp of a gradual return to normality, the Boards would to attempt to implement a rule that PERMANENTLY grants them the ability to impose VICOs against the wishes of one or more parties to the proceedings. This seems both unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | If one were a cynic then one might speculate that the motivation for this change is a desire on the part of the EPO to benefit from the cost savings that can be made by no longer having to host any more than a handful of in-person oral proceedings per year. Combined with a vast increase in the numbers of EPO employees working from home (which it seems the EPO is keen to also make permanent), the potential for shedding significant costs | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | for office space are glaringly evident. But remember that the EPO already makes a huge surplus each year and is also actively working to reduce its overheads in other ways, mostly by reducing staffing costs. So there is really no need for the EPO to cut costs associated with oral proceedings … and certainly not by imposing rules that bite the (applicant) hand that feeds it. | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Of course, we do not know the outcome of the consultation procedure. Indeed, it is perhaps possible that, against all of my expectations (and also against all logic and common sense), the vast majority of the profession will welcome with open arms the move to compulsory VICOs. However, it will be interesting to see how the EPO responds in the more likely scenario that the profession instead strongly advocates for the use of VICOs to | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | remain optional. That is, with no majority support from users and no objective need to cut costs by forcing the use of VICOs, will the EPO still press ahead regardless? And if so, cui bono? | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | LightBlue | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 11:33 AM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | With online submissions being the norm and with the possibility of communications being served electronically, oral proceedings were the one aspect where having a local representative was advantageous in view of the costs of travel. With all aspects of the procedure now being performed via the internet, can we expect foreign (US!) firms to expand their practices before the EPO, acquiring a tame representative? | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 12:48 PM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | I forgot to add that at least the UK Court of Appeal believes that the principles of access to justice demand that a party must be able to appear in person in order to effectively argue their case. The UK Supreme Court is now considering whether an exception to this rule can be made in the highly unusual circumstances where the in-person appearance of a party arguably presents a risk to national security: | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0157.html | Nov 26 06:43 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.supremecourt.uk | R (on the application of Begum) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) - The Supreme Court | Nov 26 06:43 | |
| schestowitz | Clearly, the appearance of parties at proceedings before the Boards of Appeal is extremely unlikely to present any kind of security risk. So why should the standards of justice at the EPO depart so wildly from those before the UK courts? In this respect, it is disappointing to see that CIPA’s President has reacted enthusiastically to the EPO’s proposals: | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | https://www.cipa.org.uk/policy-and-news/latest-news/cipa-welcomes-extension-of-videoconferencing-at-the-epo/ | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | The reason for my disappointment is that it is unclear to what extent the President’s statement reflects the views of CIPA’s membership. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the opportunity for UK professionals to “level the playing field” against competitors located in or around Munich might make them more inclined to overlook the glaring lack of legal basis for the EPO’s proposals. Hmmmmn (again). | Nov 26 06:43 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.cipa.org.uk | CIPA welcomes extension of videoconferencing at the EPO | Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys | Nov 26 06:43 | |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | Camparinos | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 24, 2020 AT 8:09 PM | Nov 26 06:43 |
| schestowitz | How many patents are there over videoconferencing? | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Even the EPO can’t tell if it is a legal solution that respects all the patents they granted themselves. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | The Convention Watchdog | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 24, 2020 AT 8:23 PM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | It is obvious that the EPO aims at making working at home a permanent feature of staff administration. Experience also shows that the Board of Appeals has followed the approach taken by the Presdent of the EPO in administrative matters. For example, the Boards have the same carreer system as the rest of the EPO: re-appointment on the basis of reporting which is unique for members of a judiciary. Why taking a different course for VICOs | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | which are endangering the collegiate system. Honi soit qui mal y pense …. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | The girl from Ipanema | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 24, 2020 AT 11:00 PM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Being a board member myself, the idea that worries me most is that before long the boards as such will no longer meet in a single location. Nowadays we often have lively discussions when deliberating, which makes the final decision much more reliable (no stone being left unturned), but this will not be easy when we see each other behind a screen, with all the inevitable technical trouble that comes along (and we have had some of that | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | already in our VICOs, believe me). Now if the deliberation process suffers, the very heart of the appeal proceedings suffers. I fear that the quality of our decisions will decrease if the boards do not meet in person, face to face. Oh I know that the powers that be do not really care about quality, and that they see that VICOs can be so much cheaper. But in the end, our raison d’être is providing good, well-founded and fair decisions | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | and that will be made more difficult to achieve. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Fragender | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 8:58 AM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | When reading the EPO is using Zoom I was surprised. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Of course, th EPO is immune, so they can use whatever they want… | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | But, since Zoom is critized for not following the General Data Protection Regulation, for lack of encryption etc., I was wondering: assume you would like to prevent a VICO, would it be possible to send your opponent a cease-and-desist-letter (Abmahnung) not to use Zoom professionally? | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Are patent attorneys, at least in Germany, bound by their professional duties not to use such a defective tool? | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Well, I guess Mr C couldn’t care less… | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NordicObserver | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 9:46 AM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Dear girl from Ipanema: but this very argument already applies to the EPO examining divisions! The semi-permanent homeworking that is now in place is, in effect, the death of lively discussions within the ED’s. Go and call some of your colleagues in DG1 and ask how often they meet with their fellow examiners, how often do their teams still meet… If my calls with different examiners in recent weeks are anything to go by, the answer | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | is not positive. So what does that imply for the quality of the examination process? | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Of course we are faced with an ongoing pandemic and the homeworking schedule is a necessary response. But that carries with it a responsability to maintain quality standards and stimulating the ED’s to carry out their work “normally” as much as possible. If this is not happening, then management has to take responsibility and act to improve that situation. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NordicObserver | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 9:50 AM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | My bad, forgot to add compliments to the author: excellent and entertaining article Thorsen, I always look forward to read your contributions. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 10:48 AM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | I attended several remote hearings and I think that the advantages of videoconferences outweigh the disadvantages, especially at the EPO, where hearings are extremely lengthy and involve parties and representatives from all over the world. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | At least until the end of the Covid emergency (hopefully within the next 10 years) hearings should be always held by videoconference at the EPO. | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 2:19 PM | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | My viewpoint is that of a UK patent attorney resident in Germany. I contrast Thorsten’s “take” with the enthusiasm of CIPA, on their offshore island, here: | Nov 26 06:44 |
| schestowitz | https://www.cipa.org.uk/policy-and-news/latest-news/cipa-welcomes-extension-of-videoconferencing-at-the-epo/ | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Presumably, the attitude of European patent attorneys based in such Munich-remote Member States as Portugal (home for the current EPO President), Finland and Poland will be just as enthusiastic. Let’s be honest, when it comes to competition for work from clients outside Europe, those attorney firms not resident next door to an EPO building ought not to be at a systemic unfair disadvantage. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.cipa.org.uk | CIPA welcomes extension of videoconferencing at the EPO | Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys | Nov 26 06:45 | |
| schestowitz | For me (who qualified in the 1970’s) the thing that has carried the EPO along to the world’s best and clearest case law on patentability/ validity is its unique 3-person Division, whether ED or OD. I read with mounting alarm how the unremitting efforts of EPO management to “improve quality” is turning these Divisions into a non-team of one case worker and two rubber-stampers. This is a disaster for customer confidence, customer | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | satisfaction, legal certainty and the EPO’s reputation for quality. Any EPO attorney you ask will tell you how vital it is, to clear and thorough case analysis, that the case be discussed with a colleague in the office before any client is given a considered opinion. Anybody who has read “Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow” or its development in the book by Jonathan Haidt “The Righteous Mind” will see why this is so. The analogy is | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | with the elephant and its rider. The rider is the analytical (slow thinking) mind, that sees more consequences than the elephant’s (fast thinking) brain which jumps to conclusions. Think about it: once an elephant has decided to charge in a particular direction, the rider is powerless. The only thing that will stop a charge in error, in the wrong direction, is two more elephants, equally forceful, one on each side of the rogue | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | elephant. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | So too with a rogue Patent Office Examiner, charging in the wrong direction. No amount of attorney argument will do any good. As the books explain, the rider, the slow-thinking analytical brain, is an absolute expert at finding reasons why the wrong direction is in fact the right direction. To get to a sound Decision, reliably and consistently, you just have to have two other Members in the Division. Not only that, they have to be | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | equally forceful, equally engaged. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | OK you say. What about patent litigation in England in front of a single patent judge. Space does not permit me to explain here why that’s utterly different. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Back to basics | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | NOVEMBER 25, 2020 AT 3:54 PM | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The Boards of Appeal regularly invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) when it comes to deciding on how to interpret the EPC. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The interpretation of Art 116 given in the explanatory note for the proposal of Art 15a RPBA is in manifest contradiction with the VCLT in its Art 31 and 32. According to the VCLT, a treaty has to be interpreted in good faith and if this interpretation should not lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The mere assertion that “neither Art 116 nor any other article of the EPC or RPCR 2020 stipulates that the parties to the proceedings, their representatives or the members of the board must be physically present in the room”, amounts to ignoring the philosophy underlying Art 116. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | A reasonable interpretation of the term “oral proceedings” can only mean the physical presence of the parties before the EPO’s decision-making body. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The terms “oral proceedings” are far from being ambiguous or obscure, let alone that their interpretation in good faith leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Nowhere in the “travaux préparatoires” to Art. 116 it has ever been envisaged that the parties are not physically present before the deciding body, and that for instance it could be held by phone. A videoconference is nothing more than a telephone conversation during which the parties can see each other. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | What is said here applies mutatis mutandis to oral proceedings before examining and opposition divisions. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Neither the Chairman of Boards, nor the Chairman of the BOAC, and even less the president of the EPO, have the power to amend the EPC in the way they are attempting to do. They simply lack the legitimacy to do so. The same applies to the AC. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | That in a period like the pandemic solutions have to be envisaged is not at stake. In exceptional situations, exceptional solutions can be envisaged, but as soon as the exceptional situation is over, then the exception should be stopped and the normal situation be re-established. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | In any case, the possibility of holding oral proceedings by videoconference should be left to the parties and not decided ex-officio, even in exceptional circumstances. As explained by Mr Bausch, the parties also have an interest to come to decisions and not unduly keep their files open. Once a party is opponent, once it is proprietor so that a fair balance can be stricken between contradictory requirements. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Whilst I can have some understanding of Max Drei’s plea about representatives sitting at a distance from The Hague or Munich, I cannot fundamentally agree with him. When he speaks about the three members of divisions of first instance, I have to take away his illusions. See below. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | It is not for the Office and its Boards of Appeal to decide what is good for the parties. After all, the income of the Office stems from the contributions of the parties, so that the parties must have a say about the way they are treated. Presently it is with morgue and disdain. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | Under the pretext of the pandemic situation, both the EPO and the Boards want manifestly to dematerialise the EPO. This would in the long term allow to transfer its duties to national patent offices and get read of staff which is not as docile as the management would like to. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | If you think that there are discussions within examining or opposition divisions, please abandon this idyllic vision. In vast areas of the EPO the three men divisions of first instance are long time gone and only exist on paper. In some areas there have even been oral instructions that if the first member has signed, the two other have to sign as well. Consulting the register recently, I even came across a Form 2035 in which only the | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | first member had signed! If you take on top the difficulties imposed by videoconferencing among members of divisions, this trend has rather increased. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | By isolating its staff, the EPO gains even more influence on it and concerted actions would be made more or less impossible. What a perspective for the head of (anti)personnel! | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | That by dematerialising the office it would then be possible to even sell some buildings has been clearly envisaged by the management. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The role of the EPO and its Boards is not to play Monopoly© but to offer an acceptable service to its users. Why was it then necessary to invest in rented accommodation for the boards when other buildings of the EPO are allegedly empty and can be sold? | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | By the way, the EPO wanted to sell the latest buildings of the EPO (BT8) on the other side of Grasserstraße, but the city of Munich refused as it had a contractual say in the matter. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | For a while the EPO has become the playground of would be managers only having in mind juicy bonuses and relying on management methods from the 19th century. The EPO plays a big role in European IP, and it should not be left to the incompetent amateurs presently at its helm. If anything goes wrong, they can always rely on their immunity….. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | The fathers of the EPC must be turning over at high speed in their graves. | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 06:45 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 26 06:46 |
| schestowitz | > I received this email. You can disregard all old means. | Nov 26 06:46 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 26 06:46 |
| schestowitz | > I have just now gotten Trac 1.4 working under pypy 7.0, and I'm | Nov 26 06:46 |
| schestowitz | > proceeding to integrate this with my earlier work on the back end. | Nov 26 06:46 |
| schestowitz | > This is a big step forward for me in creating a repository web site. | Nov 26 06:46 |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 06:55 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 08:00 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Nov 26 08:00 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 08:03 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 08:04 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/24/the-epos-ride-from-patentamt-to-oktroybureau/#comments | Nov 26 18:15 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | The EPO's Ride from Patentamt to Oktroybureau - Kluwer Patent Blog | Nov 26 18:15 | |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | In Decision No. 2020-011 of 9 July 2020, the Defender of the Rights of the French Republic (Défenseur des Droits) concluded that “the use of videoconferences constitutes a restriction on the right to a fair trial; it must remain the exception and be surrounded by guarantees. » | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | Is there anything to add? If the parties agree I do not see a problem. Imposed ex-officio the answer is a clear no, be it in first instance or in appeal. During the pandemic period, it could be envisaged, but certainly not after the pandemic period has come to an end. | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | That some representatives, like the members of CIPA, want to gain ground over representatives residing in Munich or The Hague is understandable, but should not be determining when it comes to impose oral proceedings in form of videoconferences before the EPO. | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | Some British firms of representatives have even actively advertised on LinkedIn their capabilities in matter of oral proceedings in form of videoconferences before the EPO. The position of CIPA, see the link in Max Drei’s comment, does thus not come as a surprise. | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | However such a deep amendment of the EPC has to be the result of a Diplomatic Conference or at least of a common decision of the Contracting States and not of a decision of the management of the EPO or of the Boards of Appeal. | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/24/the-epos-ride-from-patentamt-to-oktroybureau/#comments | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | A serious concern with homeworking would arise if examiners can go back to their home country instead of staying in a location close to their EPO office, since this hinders meeting with their colleagues and management and compromise the working environment at the EPO esp. on-the-spot training for junior examiners. Has anybody information about this ? | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | Needless to say, the concern would be still more serious if this was allowed to continue beyond the Covid situation. | Nov 26 18:15 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 18:15 |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 26 19:08 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 19:09 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Client Quit) | Nov 26 19:09 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 19:10 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 26 20:16 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-112.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 20:17 | |
| *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 26 21:14 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1bHE7b0kuyYWQLy2S | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 21:49 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-chaos.social | Senfcall.de: "Hello #fediverse, we are #Senfcall and we are #h…" - chaos.social | Nov 26 21:49 | |
| schestowitz | Hello #fediverse, | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | we are #Senfcall and we are #hosting #privacy-friendly #BigBlueButton #videoconferences. | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | Free as in #freedom AND #free as in beer. (donations are welcome) | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | You don't even have to register an account (unless you need persistent rooms). Just visit https://senfcall.de/en/ - klick on "start meeting", enter meeting name (password optional), press "start" enter your name and have fun senfing. The call-invite link you find at the top of the chat. | Nov 26 21:49 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-senfcall.de | Senfcall – Add your mustard! | Nov 26 21:49 | |
| schestowitz | #FreeSoftware #Introduction | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 21:49 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1b8At0jcwmepZlfbE | Nov 26 21:50 |
| schestowitz | " " | Nov 26 21:50 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-fedi.absturztau.be | fedi.absturztau.be | Nov 26 21:51 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1b7muQAjSa8FrEUIi | Nov 26 21:51 |
| schestowitz | " yucky cloudflare" | Nov 26 21:52 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-fedi.absturztau.be | fedi.absturztau.be | Nov 26 21:52 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1auuQWqSMJwSRbmXw | Nov 26 21:52 |
| schestowitz | "@schestowitz https://tenor.com/view/monty-python-holy-grail-black-knight-ill-bite-your-legs-off-gif-4559278" | Nov 26 21:52 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-resistance.social | Costasiella kuroshimae: "@schestowitz@pleroma.site https://tenor.com/view/…" - Mastodon | Nov 26 21:52 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-tenor.com | Monty Python Holy Grail GIF - MontyPython HolyGrail BlackKnight - Discover & Share GIFs | Nov 26 21:52 | |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1aYunf6FYlRDEF57o | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | Hello software freedom friends worldwide, above you can freely grab my #LibreOffice & OpenDocument poster you can reshare in your countries in your own language. I wish this helps spread #FreeSoftware and #Trisquel to schools and universities too. | Nov 26 21:53 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-floss.social | Ade Malsasa Akbar: "Hello software freedom friends worldwide, above y…" - FLOSS.social | Nov 26 21:53 | |
| schestowitz | Communities: @clubdesoftwarelibre @BCNFreeSoftware | Persons: @selea @strypey @redstarfish @chrisweredigital @9to5linux @ernmander @ewm @adfeno @schestowitz @Lofenyy @PT_Alfred @software_libero_e_dintorni @danslerush | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | @tsempex | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | Greetings! | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | " | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1aQNvmSFFP3CbUxCC | Nov 26 21:53 |
| schestowitz | " what’s rt and he said in an interview that he doesn’t like cryptocoins" | Nov 26 21:53 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-shitposter.club | Pleroma | Nov 26 21:53 | |
| schestowitz | techrights.org/2020/11/12/2001-rms-opens-up/ | Nov 26 21:54 |
| schestowitz | https://pleroma.site/notice/A1ZcH1moWPVI5sBIHo | Nov 26 21:54 |
| schestowitz | "Promises kept." | Nov 26 21:54 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-social.coop | L Murphy: "@schestowitz@pleroma.site Promises kept." - social.coop | Nov 26 21:54 | |
| schestowitz | > Really not how it works. | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > Voters have already ceded when the election is over. Democrats don't | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > change their mind 4 years in. Biden is in for 8, voters have no | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > leverage. The most they can do is withhold their vote, and that never | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > happens, so there is no pressure on Biden at all. None. Zero. And there | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > never will be. Democrats don't impeach Democrats, not for anything. | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > Biden doesn't care who protests, who likes him, the only people who can | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > put pressure on him once he's elected is the lobbyists who want him to | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > trample on freedom. Let's NOT pretend the public has a say in this. It's | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > a joke, it's a farce. It might as well be a lie. | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > [Meme] Trump is Out. Now It’s Time to Pressure the Biden | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > Administration/Transition Team on Software Freedom Issues. | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | > <http://techrights.org/2020/11/26/biden-transition-team/> | Nov 26 21:59 |
| schestowitz | I agree with you. | Nov 26 21:59 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | [Meme] Trump is Out. Now It’s Time to Pressure the Biden Administration/Transition Team on Software Freedom Issues. | Techrights | Nov 26 22:00 | |
| schestowitz | >> update-index.sh is the script that will | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> 1) add the latest irc and bulletin files | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> 2) update the indexes (external shell script) | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> part (2) will ask you for the Techrights password (to upload the indexes) | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | >> that's it! :-) | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | > Ok. How much can and should be scripted? update-index.sh can go in a | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | > cron job, I expect. | Nov 26 22:01 |
| schestowitz | No, as I want neither private keys nor passwords in that account. glr is still relatively new. Also, Raspi is updated by me every now and then, but I don't trust it with top level things. | Nov 26 22:01 |
| *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes | Nov 26 22:49 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!