Techrights logo

IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, September 30, 2021

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini).

*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@hngsz54a2nzc6.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 00:33
schestowitzhttp://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/28/germany-and-slovenia-ratify-protocol-on-provisional-application-unified-patent-court/#commentsSep 30 02:04
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Germany and Slovenia ratify Protocol on Provisional Application Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent BlogSep 30 02:04
schestowitz"Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzAndre FransSep 30 02:04
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 1:52 AMSep 30 02:04
schestowitzBrexit implications suddenly vaporized, why this question is not addressed in the Council document?Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:04
schestowitzPatent robotSep 30 02:04
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 9:48 AMSep 30 02:04
schestowitzCopied from the EU Council website today:Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzAgreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC)Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzUnited Kingdom: Withdrawal of ratification received on, and effective as from, 20/07/2020Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:04
schestowitzCampinosSep 30 02:04
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 10:36 AMSep 30 02:04
schestowitz“This also applies to small and medium-sized companies that make a significant contribution to the innovative potential of our country.”Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzCourt fees of the UPC for cancelling a patent are 20.000EUR. In Czech Republic, they are 80EUR.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzLawyers fees will also be on the rise, due to the tight agenda of 12 months imposed by the UPC.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzRefundable amounts are too low, so even if you are in yoru own right, you won’t be fully refunded.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzSo much the “it’s also good for SMEs”.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzMdme Lamberts has a different calculator than mine.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:04
schestowitzConcerned observerSep 30 02:04
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 12:58 PMSep 30 02:04
schestowitzAn interesting question will apply to judges that might be recruited during the provisional application period. That is, will they be prepared to accept employment from a court that, strictly speaking, does not have any legal basis (and hence is not a bona fide legal entity)?Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzOf course, accepting an offer of employment by the UPC under these circumstances would (or at least should) disqualify the judges concerned from hearing any cases that challenge the basis (under international law) for the UPC. This is because any party raising such a challenge would be able to point to the judge’s acceptance of employment by the UPC as providing objective justification for a fear of partiality on the point of law in question.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzThus, it will be impossible for any judge of the UPC to handle, in an objectively unbiased manner, any challenges to the legitimacy of the UPC.Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzPray tell, which courts and judges would be able to handle such challenges in an unbiased manner? There is absolutely no doubt that such challenges will be raised. So is this another reason to conclude that, as currently constructed, the UPC suffers from fundamental and irredeemable flaws … including an impossibility of demonstrating compliance with the Art 6 ECHR rights of litigants to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”Sep 30 02:04
schestowitz?Sep 30 02:04
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:04
schestowitzAttentive ObserverSep 30 02:04
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 8:03 PMSep 30 02:04
schestowitzYour comment is very interesting and you raise a real problem.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzWhen do you state that the UPC “does not have any legal basis” are you aiming at Art 7(2)UPCA?Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzAnother way of looking at it, is it possible, without amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA, to consider that the notion of legal judge is not respected should the duties of the London Section be “provisionally”transferred to Paris and/or Munich?Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzAs far as judges are concerned there are quite a few of them jumping at the bit to get a post at the UPC.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzSome of them openly complain that the delayed opening of the UPC costs them a lot of money in view of the higher wages they could get at the UPC in comparison to their national wages.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzIt is not difficult to understand why the promoters of the UPC ignore all the legal problems which the UPC faces. The only legally correct way to amend Art 7(2) UPCA is to renegotiate the location of the section of the central division. This means a new round of ratifications.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzUPC promoters know too well that the interest for the UPC would vanish. After all, 45+ years have passed since the Luxembourg conference and it does not appear that the few supranational litigations in the EU need such a complicated thing as the UPC.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzNot only the British legal profession has already lost out due to Brexit, but the same fate would occur to the legal profession on the continent.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzAll the efforts put into the setting up of the UPC would have been in vain and there would be no return on investment.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzBut wanting to go through the wall for the sake of a return on investment will end up with a similar result.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:05
schestowitzAttentive ObserverSep 30 02:05
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 5:56 PMSep 30 02:05
schestowitzThe civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have had their hands guided all along by external lobbyists.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzIf you compare the content of the explanatory note for the second ratification with an article published by Mr Tillman (from Hogan Lowells) in GRUR Int a few months before the resemblance is baffling.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzThe whole waffling about the provisional allocation of the duties of the London Section to Munich is to be found in the article in GRUR Int.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzDoes anybody think that the countries having claimed the reallocation of the London Section (IT, NL, IR) will simply acquiesce to such a crude manoeuvre?Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzSuch an absence of sense of the realities is flabbergasting.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzIt give the feeling that the promoters of the UPC think that the more fake information is repeated the more they hope it will become true.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzIn the explanatory it is also said that it will be cheaper for a German SME to go to´ the UPC rather than to a German court. Hard to believe, but true.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzMrs Lamberts has definitely a different calculator, but we know where it comes from.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzWithout amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA it is a fallacy to think that the UPCA is in conformity with Union law.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 02:05
schestowitzMax DreiSep 30 02:05
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 7:47 PMSep 30 02:05
schestowitz“Never mind the (lack of) quality; feel the width” as the legendary seller of poor quality carpets used to say. All these worthy but legalistic objections are powerless in the face of a political will at the level of the EU, to have the UPC succeed.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzRecall the time when the Editor of the London Times was exasperated by his journalist embedded with the British forces in the Boer War in South Africa. The war was not going well. The journalist filed a succession of reports of British defeats in battle. The readership of the newspaper was not happy at all. The Editor telegraphed his employee at the Front with a short message, namely “Send news of victories”Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzThose pushing the UPC operate in a world where the axiom “Fake it till you make it” is usually successful. As somebody on another blog thread pointed out, it will be pressure from the global titans, the bulk accumulators of portfolios of unitary patents, the so-called “national champions”, who will apply irresistible force on courts and governments, to force the UPC to work.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzThat irresistible pressure on the politicians and jurists, applied by lobbyists, will result in a political mindset that the UPC must be made to succeed. After all, as everybody knows: “Where there is a will, there is always a way”. The Little Countries will presumably be bought off, in successive rounds of the usual EU horse-trading. The SME’s are mostly not even aware what is at stake and those few who understand have no lobbying muscle.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitzFor those pushing the UPC, harm to our precious Rule of Law is mere “collateral damage”.Sep 30 02:05
schestowitz"Sep 30 02:05
*psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 07:42
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 08:22
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@7au7cchx5x986.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 09:09
schestowitz=Sep 30 10:40
schestowitzx https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-pens-ode-open-source-projects-offers-them-azure-creditsSep 30 10:40
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.windowscentral.com | Microsoft pens ode to open source projects, offers them Azure credits | Windows CentralSep 30 10:40
schestowitz=Sep 30 10:40
schestowitzx https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/574513-the-united-states-must-lead-the-way-on-artificial-intelligenceSep 30 10:40
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-thehill.com | The United States must lead the way on artificial intelligence standards | TheHillSep 30 10:40
schestowitz# sucking up to M$Sep 30 10:41
schestowitz=Sep 30 10:41
schestowitzx https://www.pcworld.com/article/538958/pcworld-redesign.htmlSep 30 10:41
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.pcworld.com | Welcome to the new PCWorld.com | PCWorldSep 30 10:41
*techrights_guest|6 (~519aac55@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 11:05
*techrights_guest|6 has quit (Quit: Connection closed)Sep 30 12:54
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 17:38
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 17:39
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1443172803621097478Sep 30 17:42
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz I should make a simple chat with key exchange based on ZMQ et TOR.Sep 30 17:42
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 17:49
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 17:49
schestowitz> Hi Alexandre and Roy,Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Richard asked me to upload his last talk in Kiev (Ukraine), as I am oneSep 30 17:55
schestowitz> of the maintainers of audio-video.gnu.org site.Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> He forward me a message he crossed with you somehow at certain moment.Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Now I am gathering the information about this talk in order to publishSep 30 17:55
schestowitz> it at https://audio-video.gnu.org/Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-audio-video.gnu.org | Audio/Video - GNU Project - Free-Software FoundationSep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Searching from one site and the other, and doing a little research, ISep 30 17:55
schestowitz> 've been able to gather the information you can see in the HTML chunkSep 30 17:55
schestowitz> below.Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Can you please review this information and let me know if it is correct?Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Would you suggest adding any extra information?Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> I am not in touch with any of the organizers of this event, thus if youSep 30 17:55
schestowitz> have their email I can ask them too. Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Sep 30 17:55
schestowitz> Thank you very much, and sorry for any inconvenience.Sep 30 17:55
schestowitzHi,Sep 30 17:56
schestowitzAll that I caught was an incorrect date (that date is for a different talk in Poland) and extra trailing space in "OSDN Conf ".Sep 30 17:56
schestowitzI think the Ukraine talk was the same date as my wedding anniversary: Sept. 18th.Sep 30 17:56
schestowitzThanks for sharing the material onwards. Lot of important things covered in that talk.Sep 30 17:56
schestowitz> Valencia is also the home of Slimbook.es.Sep 30 18:03
schestowitz> Sep 30 18:03
schestowitz> I haven't followed lately but perhaps there is a lot of movement to andSep 30 18:03
schestowitz> within FOSS there and in Spain in general.Sep 30 18:03
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 18:44
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 18:45
*psydroid3 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 19:03
*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 19:04
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 19:14
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 19:14
schestowitzhttp://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/28/germany-and-slovenia-ratify-protocol-on-provisional-application-unified-patent-court/#commentsSep 30 21:01
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Germany and Slovenia ratify Protocol on Provisional Application Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent BlogSep 30 21:01
schestowitz"Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzAndre FransSep 30 21:01
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 1:52 AMSep 30 21:01
schestowitzBrexit implications suddenly vaporized, why this question is not addressed in the Council document?Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:01
schestowitzPatent robotSep 30 21:01
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 9:48 AMSep 30 21:01
schestowitzCopied from the EU Council website today:Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzAgreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC)Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzUnited Kingdom: Withdrawal of ratification received on, and effective as from, 20/07/2020Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:01
schestowitzCampinosSep 30 21:01
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 10:36 AMSep 30 21:01
schestowitz“This also applies to small and medium-sized companies that make a significant contribution to the innovative potential of our country.”Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzCourt fees of the UPC for cancelling a patent are 20.000EUR. In Czech Republic, they are 80EUR.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzLawyers fees will also be on the rise, due to the tight agenda of 12 months imposed by the UPC.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzRefundable amounts are too low, so even if you are in yoru own right, you won’t be fully refunded.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzSo much the “it’s also good for SMEs”.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzMdme Lamberts has a different calculator than mine.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:01
schestowitzConcerned observerSep 30 21:01
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 12:58 PMSep 30 21:01
schestowitzAn interesting question will apply to judges that might be recruited during the provisional application period. That is, will they be prepared to accept employment from a court that, strictly speaking, does not have any legal basis (and hence is not a bona fide legal entity)?Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzOf course, accepting an offer of employment by the UPC under these circumstances would (or at least should) disqualify the judges concerned from hearing any cases that challenge the basis (under international law) for the UPC. This is because any party raising such a challenge would be able to point to the judge’s acceptance of employment by the UPC as providing objective justification for a fear of partiality on the point of law in question.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzThus, it will be impossible for any judge of the UPC to handle, in an objectively unbiased manner, any challenges to the legitimacy of the UPC.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzPray tell, which courts and judges would be able to handle such challenges in an unbiased manner? There is absolutely no doubt that such challenges will be raised. So is this another reason to conclude that, as currently constructed, the UPC suffers from fundamental and irredeemable flaws … including an impossibility of demonstrating compliance with the Art 6 ECHR rights of litigants to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”Sep 30 21:01
schestowitz?Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:01
schestowitzAttentive ObserverSep 30 21:01
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 8:03 PMSep 30 21:01
schestowitzYour comment is very interesting and you raise a real problem.Sep 30 21:01
schestowitzWhen do you state that the UPC “does not have any legal basis” are you aiming at Art 7(2)UPCA?Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzAnother way of looking at it, is it possible, without amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA, to consider that the notion of legal judge is not respected should the duties of the London Section be “provisionally”transferred to Paris and/or Munich?Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzAs far as judges are concerned there are quite a few of them jumping at the bit to get a post at the UPC.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzSome of them openly complain that the delayed opening of the UPC costs them a lot of money in view of the higher wages they could get at the UPC in comparison to their national wages.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzIt is not difficult to understand why the promoters of the UPC ignore all the legal problems which the UPC faces. The only legally correct way to amend Art 7(2) UPCA is to renegotiate the location of the section of the central division. This means a new round of ratifications.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzUPC promoters know too well that the interest for the UPC would vanish. After all, 45+ years have passed since the Luxembourg conference and it does not appear that the few supranational litigations in the EU need such a complicated thing as the UPC.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzNot only the British legal profession has already lost out due to Brexit, but the same fate would occur to the legal profession on the continent.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzAll the efforts put into the setting up of the UPC would have been in vain and there would be no return on investment.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzBut wanting to go through the wall for the sake of a return on investment will end up with a similar result.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:02
schestowitzConcerned observerSep 30 21:02
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:32 AMSep 30 21:02
schestowitzAttentive,Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzThere are many problems with the purported legal basis for the UPC (and its Protocols). However, I was thinking mostly of Article 3(1) of the PAP.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzUnless and until the PAP comes into force, the UPC will not have any legal personality, and will therefore be legally incapable of employing any judges. Thus, for any judge who accepts employment by “the UPC” during the provisional application phase, an objectively justifiable fear of partiality would arise on questions that will be crucial to determining whether the current UPCA provides sound legal basis for the UPC.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzFor example, an objectively justifiable fear would arise that any such judges had already made up their minds with regard to either the legal effect of the withdrawal of a ratification, or the possibility of “rescuing” (under international law) an instrument that has not been ratified by the relevant contracting parties specified in that instrument. Both of these questions will be highly relevant to determination of the validity of the current Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzUPCA. Further, the same objective fear of partiality would apply to any judges recruited after the end of the provisional application phase. Which would leave precisely no judges of the UPC who would fit the criterion of an unbiased adjudicator on the question of the legal validity of the UPCA.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzThus, if things go to plan for the UPC’s promoters, the UPC will launch in circumstances where it will be impossible for any of its judges to provide an impartial hearing on crucial questions that WILL be raised by certain litigants. This would hardly inspire confidence in the UPC. Further, the serious deficiencies regarding the governance of the UPC are, over time, pretty much certain to make things even worse. So much for the supposed rule of Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzlaw.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:02
schestowitzAttentive ObserverSep 30 21:02
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 5:56 PMSep 30 21:02
schestowitzThe civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have had their hands guided all along by external lobbyists.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzIf you compare the content of the explanatory note for the second ratification with an article published by Mr Tillman (from Hogan Lowells) in GRUR Int a few months before the resemblance is baffling.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzThe whole waffling about the provisional allocation of the duties of the London Section to Munich is to be found in the article in GRUR Int.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzDoes anybody think that the countries having claimed the reallocation of the London Section (IT, NL, IR) will simply acquiesce to such a crude manoeuvre?Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzSuch an absence of sense of the realities is flabbergasting.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzIt give the feeling that the promoters of the UPC think that the more fake information is repeated the more they hope it will become true.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzIn the explanatory it is also said that it will be cheaper for a German SME to go to´ the UPC rather than to a German court. Hard to believe, but true.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzMrs Lamberts has definitely a different calculator, but we know where it comes from.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzWithout amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA it is a fallacy to think that the UPCA is in conformity with Union law.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:02
schestowitzMax DreiSep 30 21:02
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 7:47 PMSep 30 21:02
schestowitz“Never mind the (lack of) quality; feel the width” as the legendary seller of poor quality carpets used to say. All these worthy but legalistic objections are powerless in the face of a political will at the level of the EU, to have the UPC succeed.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzRecall the time when the Editor of the London Times was exasperated by his journalist embedded with the British forces in the Boer War in South Africa. The war was not going well. The journalist filed a succession of reports of British defeats in battle. The readership of the newspaper was not happy at all. The Editor telegraphed his employee at the Front with a short message, namely “Send news of victories”Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzThose pushing the UPC operate in a world where the axiom “Fake it till you make it” is usually successful. As somebody on another blog thread pointed out, it will be pressure from the global titans, the bulk accumulators of portfolios of unitary patents, the so-called “national champions”, who will apply irresistible force on courts and governments, to force the UPC to work.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzThat irresistible pressure on the politicians and jurists, applied by lobbyists, will result in a political mindset that the UPC must be made to succeed. After all, as everybody knows: “Where there is a will, there is always a way”. The Little Countries will presumably be bought off, in successive rounds of the usual EU horse-trading. The SME’s are mostly not even aware what is at stake and those few who understand have no lobbying muscle.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzFor those pushing the UPC, harm to our precious Rule of Law is mere “collateral damage”.Sep 30 21:02
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:02
schestowitzConcerned observerSep 30 21:03
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:37 AMSep 30 21:03
schestowitzMax,Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzAll hard to deny. The most galling part of the political support for the UPC is that it seems that the intention is to raise the current legislation from the dead merely for the sake of political convenience. This will create a Frankenstein’s monster of a court. The ultimate fate of Frankenstein should be a cautionary tale for those politicians intent upon ramming this court down all of our throats.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:03
schestowitzAttentive ObserverSep 30 21:03
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:03 AMSep 30 21:03
schestowitzDear Max Drei,Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzI understand and share your anger at the way the UPC is pushed down our throats for the benefit of very few which want to make the big buck. The usefulness of the UPC for SMEs is also one of the fake news which helped as a fig leaf to lure politicians in accepting that the UPC is something which is absolutely necessary for the benefit of Europe.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzThe contrary is true and the big beneficiaries are the big industry, but even more internationally active lawyer firms specialised in litigation.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzPortugal and Slovenia have been bought off as an arbitration chamber was offered to them.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzA training centre for judges has been promised to Hungary, but in view of the constitutional problems to be solved before it cannot ratify the UPCA and the centre will have to be transferred somewhere else. Here we have another problem which should be settled before the PPA enters into force and the judges are trained.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzI cannot accept that the Rule of Law is mere “collateral damage”.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzIf the EU accepts that the UPC enters into force as it stands, then it should refrain from requesting Poland to restore the independence of justice. By accepting that the duties of the London Section of the central division is pushed around as suggested, it behaves exactly as Poland.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzI have not yet given up the hope that in the end the rule of law will prevail.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:03
schestowitzDonna MontannaSep 30 21:03
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:59 AMSep 30 21:03
schestowitzThe UPC has no backing by the people. Just the like EU.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:03
schestowitzPatent robotSep 30 21:03
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:48 AMSep 30 21:03
schestowitzCan someone please explain how the Protocol and the UPC can enter into force soon when the UK has withdrawn its ratification in 2020?Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzREPLYSep 30 21:03
schestowitzDavid FosterSep 30 21:03
schestowitzSEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 1:35 PMSep 30 21:03
schestowitzThe European Commission has cheated the Impact Assessment of the UPC.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzThe Harhoff 2009 study was about the “Community Patent”, not the “Unitary Patent”.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzIt was done to hide the controversial changes made in between, such as the “self-financed” aspect of the UPC, which explains why it is so expensive for SMEs.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzThis is a intentional fraud.Sep 30 21:03
schestowitz"Sep 30 21:03
schestowitzDear Mr. Schestowitz,Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzIn this e-mail  I give you a list of people that I found that work on SLAPP, maybe some of them could be able to help you further. In any case, if this situation affects to a group of people, this should be presented collectively. Unity is strength.Sep 30 21:05
schestowitz1.  Coalition against SLAPPS in Europe: General 2 — (the-case.eu)Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzContact 3 — (the-case.eu)Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzLEGAL SUPPORT — (the-case.eu)Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzSep 30 21:05
schestowitzLEGAL SUPPORT —Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzhttps://www.the-case.eu/get-helpSep 30 21:05
schestowitzhttps://www.the-case.eu/contact-usSep 30 21:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | General 2 —Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzhttps://www.the-case.eu/legal-supportSep 30 21:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | Contact 3 —Sep 30 21:05
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | LEGAL SUPPORT —Sep 30 21:05
schestowitzSep 30 21:05
schestowitz"Sep 30 21:08
schestowitzOne of the MEPs is Roberta Metsola (Maltese): roberta.metsola@europarl.europa.euSep 30 21:08
schestowitzOther mentioned in the article is: Tiemo Wölken (German): tiemo.woelken@europarl.europa.euSep 30 21:08
schestowitzAnd also Agnes Jongerius (Dutch): agnes.jongerius@europarl.europa.eu  (I think you already know this MEP as I remember I read it in one of your articles).Sep 30 21:08
schestowitz"Sep 30 21:08
schestowitz"I send you the link, like this you can approach some of the Members in the different countries to see if they can help you further. Here is the list of Members. You can Google the names and organisations to contact them:Sep 30 21:12
schestowitzRegister of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (europa.eu)       You click on "Members" to see the list.Sep 30 21:12
schestowitzhttps://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3746Sep 30 21:12
-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ec.europa.eu | Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entitiesSep 30 21:12
schestowitzI hope this information will be useful for you.Sep 30 21:12
schestowitzKindest Regards,Sep 30 21:12
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 21:15
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 21:16
*rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 22:02
*liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 22:02
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 22:14
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 22:14
*GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)Sep 30 23:04
*psydroid3 has quit (connection closed)Sep 30 23:30
*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@g2d7npspg4d6g.irc) has joined #techbytesSep 30 23:56

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini).