●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, September 30, 2021 ●● ● Sep 30 [00:33] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@hngsz54a2nzc6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 30 [02:04] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/28/germany-and-slovenia-ratify-protocol-on-provisional-application-unified-patent-court/#comments [02:04] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Germany and Slovenia ratify Protocol on Provisional Application Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog [02:04] schestowitz " [02:04] schestowitz Andre Frans [02:04] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 1:52 AM [02:04] schestowitz Brexit implications suddenly vaporized, why this question is not addressed in the Council document? [02:04] schestowitz REPLY [02:04] schestowitz Patent robot [02:04] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 9:48 AM [02:04] schestowitz Copied from the EU Council website today: [02:04] schestowitz Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) [02:04] schestowitz United Kingdom: Withdrawal of ratification received on, and effective as from, 20/07/2020 [02:04] schestowitz REPLY [02:04] schestowitz Campinos [02:04] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 10:36 AM [02:04] schestowitz This also applies to small and medium-sized companies that make a significant contribution to the innovative potential of our country. [02:04] schestowitz Court fees of the UPC for cancelling a patent are 20.000EUR. In Czech Republic, they are 80EUR. [02:04] schestowitz Lawyers fees will also be on the rise, due to the tight agenda of 12 months imposed by the UPC. [02:04] schestowitz Refundable amounts are too low, so even if you are in yoru own right, you wont be fully refunded. [02:04] schestowitz So much the its also good for SMEs. [02:04] schestowitz Mdme Lamberts has a different calculator than mine. [02:04] schestowitz REPLY [02:04] schestowitz Concerned observer [02:04] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 12:58 PM [02:04] schestowitz An 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)? [02:04] schestowitz Of 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 judges acceptance of employment by the UPC as providing objective justification for a fear of partiality on the point of law in question. [02:04] schestowitz Thus, 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. [02:04] schestowitz Pray 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 [02:04] schestowitz ? [02:04] schestowitz REPLY [02:04] schestowitz Attentive Observer [02:04] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 8:03 PM [02:05] schestowitz Your comment is very interesting and you raise a real problem. [02:05] schestowitz When do you state that the UPC does not have any legal basis are you aiming at Art 7(2)UPCA? [02:05] schestowitz Another 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 provisionallytransferred to Paris and/or Munich? [02:05] schestowitz As far as judges are concerned there are quite a few of them jumping at the bit to get a post at the UPC. [02:05] schestowitz Some 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. [02:05] schestowitz It 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. [02:05] schestowitz UPC 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. [02:05] schestowitz Not 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. [02:05] schestowitz All the efforts put into the setting up of the UPC would have been in vain and there would be no return on investment. [02:05] schestowitz But wanting to go through the wall for the sake of a return on investment will end up with a similar result. [02:05] schestowitz REPLY [02:05] schestowitz Attentive Observer [02:05] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 5:56 PM [02:05] schestowitz The civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have had their hands guided all along by external lobbyists. [02:05] schestowitz If 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. [02:05] schestowitz The 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. [02:05] schestowitz Does anybody think that the countries having claimed the reallocation of the London Section (IT, NL, IR) will simply acquiesce to such a crude manoeuvre? [02:05] schestowitz Such an absence of sense of the realities is flabbergasting. [02:05] schestowitz It 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. [02:05] schestowitz In 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. [02:05] schestowitz Mrs Lamberts has definitely a different calculator, but we know where it comes from. [02:05] schestowitz Without amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA it is a fallacy to think that the UPCA is in conformity with Union law. [02:05] schestowitz REPLY [02:05] schestowitz Max Drei [02:05] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 7:47 PM [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. [02:05] schestowitz Recall 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 [02:05] schestowitz Those 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. [02:05] schestowitz That 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 SMEs are mostly not even aware what is at stake and those few who understand have no lobbying muscle. [02:05] schestowitz For those pushing the UPC, harm to our precious Rule of Law is mere collateral damage. [02:05] schestowitz " ● Sep 30 [07:42] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 30 [08:22] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 30 [09:09] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@7au7cchx5x986.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 30 [10:40] schestowitz = [10:40] schestowitz x https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-pens-ode-open-source-projects-offers-them-azure-credits [10:40] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.windowscentral.com | Microsoft pens ode to open source projects, offers them Azure credits | Windows Central [10:40] schestowitz = [10:40] schestowitz x https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/574513-the-united-states-must-lead-the-way-on-artificial-intelligence [10:40] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-thehill.com | The United States must lead the way on artificial intelligence standards | TheHill [10:41] schestowitz # sucking up to M$ [10:41] schestowitz = [10:41] schestowitz x https://www.pcworld.com/article/538958/pcworld-redesign.html [10:41] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.pcworld.com | Welcome to the new PCWorld.com | PCWorld ● Sep 30 [11:05] *techrights_guest|6 (~519aac55@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 30 [12:54] *techrights_guest|6 has quit (Quit: Connection closed) ● Sep 30 [17:38] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:39] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:42] schestowitz https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1443172803621097478 [17:42] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: @schestowitz I should make a simple chat with key exchange based on ZMQ et TOR. [17:49] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:49] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:55] schestowitz > Hi Alexandre and Roy, [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > Richard asked me to upload his last talk in Kiev (Ukraine), as I am one [17:55] schestowitz > of the maintainers of audio-video.gnu.org site. [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > He forward me a message he crossed with you somehow at certain moment. [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > Now I am gathering the information about this talk in order to publish [17:55] schestowitz > it at https://audio-video.gnu.org/ [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-audio-video.gnu.org | Audio/Video - GNU Project - Free-Software Foundation [17:55] schestowitz > Searching from one site and the other, and doing a little research, I [17:55] schestowitz > 've been able to gather the information you can see in the HTML chunk [17:55] schestowitz > below. [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > Can you please review this information and let me know if it is correct? [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > Would you suggest adding any extra information? [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > I am not in touch with any of the organizers of this event, thus if you [17:55] schestowitz > have their email I can ask them too. [17:55] schestowitz > [17:55] schestowitz > Thank you very much, and sorry for any inconvenience. [17:56] schestowitz Hi, [17:56] schestowitz All that I caught was an incorrect date (that date is for a different talk in Poland) and extra trailing space in "OSDN Conf ". [17:56] schestowitz I think the Ukraine talk was the same date as my wedding anniversary: Sept. 18th. [17:56] schestowitz Thanks for sharing the material onwards. Lot of important things covered in that talk. ● Sep 30 [18:03] schestowitz > Valencia is also the home of Slimbook.es. [18:03] schestowitz > [18:03] schestowitz > I haven't followed lately but perhaps there is a lot of movement to and [18:03] schestowitz > within FOSS there and in Spain in general. [18:44] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [18:45] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 30 [19:03] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:04] *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:14] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:14] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 30 [21:01] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/28/germany-and-slovenia-ratify-protocol-on-provisional-application-unified-patent-court/#comments [21:01] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Germany and Slovenia ratify Protocol on Provisional Application Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog [21:01] schestowitz " [21:01] schestowitz Andre Frans [21:01] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 1:52 AM [21:01] schestowitz Brexit implications suddenly vaporized, why this question is not addressed in the Council document? [21:01] schestowitz REPLY [21:01] schestowitz Patent robot [21:01] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 9:48 AM [21:01] schestowitz Copied from the EU Council website today: [21:01] schestowitz Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) [21:01] schestowitz United Kingdom: Withdrawal of ratification received on, and effective as from, 20/07/2020 [21:01] schestowitz REPLY [21:01] schestowitz Campinos [21:01] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 10:36 AM [21:01] schestowitz This also applies to small and medium-sized companies that make a significant contribution to the innovative potential of our country. [21:01] schestowitz Court fees of the UPC for cancelling a patent are 20.000EUR. In Czech Republic, they are 80EUR. [21:01] schestowitz Lawyers fees will also be on the rise, due to the tight agenda of 12 months imposed by the UPC. [21:01] schestowitz Refundable amounts are too low, so even if you are in yoru own right, you wont be fully refunded. [21:01] schestowitz So much the its also good for SMEs. [21:01] schestowitz Mdme Lamberts has a different calculator than mine. [21:01] schestowitz REPLY [21:01] schestowitz Concerned observer [21:01] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 12:58 PM [21:01] schestowitz An 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)? [21:01] schestowitz Of 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 judges acceptance of employment by the UPC as providing objective justification for a fear of partiality on the point of law in question. [21:01] schestowitz Thus, 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. [21:01] schestowitz Pray 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 [21:01] schestowitz ? [21:01] schestowitz REPLY [21:01] schestowitz Attentive Observer [21:01] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 8:03 PM [21:01] schestowitz Your comment is very interesting and you raise a real problem. [21:02] schestowitz When do you state that the UPC does not have any legal basis are you aiming at Art 7(2)UPCA? [21:02] schestowitz Another 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 provisionallytransferred to Paris and/or Munich? [21:02] schestowitz As far as judges are concerned there are quite a few of them jumping at the bit to get a post at the UPC. [21:02] schestowitz Some 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. [21:02] schestowitz It 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. [21:02] schestowitz UPC 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. [21:02] schestowitz Not 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. [21:02] schestowitz All the efforts put into the setting up of the UPC would have been in vain and there would be no return on investment. [21:02] schestowitz But wanting to go through the wall for the sake of a return on investment will end up with a similar result. [21:02] schestowitz REPLY [21:02] schestowitz Concerned observer [21:02] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:32 AM [21:02] schestowitz Attentive, [21:02] schestowitz There 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. [21:02] schestowitz Unless 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. [21:02] schestowitz For 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 [21:02] schestowitz UPCA. 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. [21:02] schestowitz Thus, if things go to plan for the UPCs 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 [21:02] schestowitz law. [21:02] schestowitz REPLY [21:02] schestowitz Attentive Observer [21:02] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 5:56 PM [21:02] schestowitz The civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have had their hands guided all along by external lobbyists. [21:02] schestowitz If 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. [21:02] schestowitz The 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. [21:02] schestowitz Does anybody think that the countries having claimed the reallocation of the London Section (IT, NL, IR) will simply acquiesce to such a crude manoeuvre? [21:02] schestowitz Such an absence of sense of the realities is flabbergasting. [21:02] schestowitz It 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. [21:02] schestowitz In 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. [21:02] schestowitz Mrs Lamberts has definitely a different calculator, but we know where it comes from. [21:02] schestowitz Without amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA it is a fallacy to think that the UPCA is in conformity with Union law. [21:02] schestowitz REPLY [21:02] schestowitz Max Drei [21:02] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 7:47 PM [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. [21:02] schestowitz Recall 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 [21:02] schestowitz Those 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. [21:02] schestowitz That 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 SMEs are mostly not even aware what is at stake and those few who understand have no lobbying muscle. [21:02] schestowitz For those pushing the UPC, harm to our precious Rule of Law is mere collateral damage. [21:02] schestowitz REPLY [21:03] schestowitz Concerned observer [21:03] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:37 AM [21:03] schestowitz Max, [21:03] schestowitz All 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 Frankensteins 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. [21:03] schestowitz REPLY [21:03] schestowitz Attentive Observer [21:03] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:03 AM [21:03] schestowitz Dear Max Drei, [21:03] schestowitz I 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. [21:03] schestowitz The contrary is true and the big beneficiaries are the big industry, but even more internationally active lawyer firms specialised in litigation. [21:03] schestowitz Portugal and Slovenia have been bought off as an arbitration chamber was offered to them. [21:03] schestowitz A 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. [21:03] schestowitz I cannot accept that the Rule of Law is mere collateral damage. [21:03] schestowitz If 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. [21:03] schestowitz I have not yet given up the hope that in the end the rule of law will prevail. [21:03] schestowitz REPLY [21:03] schestowitz Donna Montanna [21:03] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:59 AM [21:03] schestowitz The UPC has no backing by the people. Just the like EU. [21:03] schestowitz REPLY [21:03] schestowitz Patent robot [21:03] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:48 AM [21:03] schestowitz Can someone please explain how the Protocol and the UPC can enter into force soon when the UK has withdrawn its ratification in 2020? [21:03] schestowitz REPLY [21:03] schestowitz David Foster [21:03] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 1:35 PM [21:03] schestowitz The European Commission has cheated the Impact Assessment of the UPC. [21:03] schestowitz The Harhoff 2009 study was about the Community Patent, not the Unitary Patent. [21:03] schestowitz It 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. [21:03] schestowitz This is a intentional fraud. [21:03] schestowitz " [21:05] schestowitz Dear Mr. Schestowitz, [21:05] schestowitz In 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. [21:05] schestowitz 1. Coalition against SLAPPS in Europe: General 2 (the-case.eu) [21:05] schestowitz Contact 3 (the-case.eu) [21:05] schestowitz LEGAL SUPPORT (the-case.eu) [21:05] schestowitz [21:05] schestowitz LEGAL SUPPORT [21:05] schestowitz https://www.the-case.eu/get-help [21:05] schestowitz https://www.the-case.eu/contact-us [21:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | General 2 [21:05] schestowitz https://www.the-case.eu/legal-support [21:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | Contact 3 [21:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.the-case.eu | LEGAL SUPPORT [21:05] schestowitz [21:08] schestowitz " [21:08] schestowitz One of the MEPs is Roberta Metsola (Maltese): roberta.metsola@europarl.europa.eu [21:08] schestowitz Other mentioned in the article is: Tiemo Wlken (German): tiemo.woelken@europarl.europa.eu [21:08] schestowitz And 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). [21:08] schestowitz " [21:12] 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: [21:12] schestowitz Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (europa.eu) You click on "Members" to see the list. [21:12] schestowitz https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3746 [21:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ec.europa.eu | Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities [21:12] schestowitz I hope this information will be useful for you. [21:12] schestowitz Kindest Regards, [21:15] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:16] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 30 [22:02] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:02] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #techbytes [22:14] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:14] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 30 [23:04] *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [23:30] *psydroid3 has quit (connection closed) [23:56] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@g2d7npspg4d6g.irc) has joined #techbytes