●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Monday, October 31, 2022 ●● ● Oct 31 [00:41] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [00:48] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@s9xek7hahrdji.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 31 [01:36] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [01:40] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@s9xek7hahrdji.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 31 [07:06] schestowitz
  • [07:06] schestowitz
    UK sec guru plays down hype over new OpenSSL vulnerability
    [07:06] schestowitz
    [07:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-iTWire - UK sec guru plays down hype over new OpenSSL vulnerability [07:06] schestowitz

    British security researcher Kevin Beaumont has played down the hype over a recent announcement about a critical flaw in the open-source cryptographic library OpenSSL from Red Hat Linux. The advisory is due on 1 November.

    [07:06] schestowitz

    Mark Cox, vice-president of security at the Apache Software Foundation, tweeted on 26 October that an OpenSSL 3.0.7 update would fix a critical CVE due to be announced on 1 November, adding that it did not affect versions before 3.0.

    [07:06] schestowitz
    [07:06] schestowitz
    • [07:07] schestowitz
  • [07:07] schestowitz
    Upcoming Critical OpenSSL Vulnerability: What will be Affected?
    [07:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-isc.sans.edu | InfoSec Handlers Diary Blog - SANS Internet Storm Center [07:07] schestowitz
    [07:07] schestowitz

    This week, OpenSSL announced they would release OpenSSL 3.0.7 this coming Tuesday. It will fix a critical vulnerability [1]. The OpenSSL definition of critical: [...]

    [07:07] schestowitz
    [07:07] schestowitz
    • [07:11] schestowitz
  • [07:11] schestowitz
    A Newsletter No More
    [07:11] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epistem.ink | A Newsletter No More - by George - Epistemink [07:11] schestowitz
    [07:11] schestowitz

    The future of this blog includes it being a blog no more, at least not in the typical substackian / wordpressy / RSSfeedy sense.

    [07:11] schestowitz
    [07:11] schestowitz
    • [07:12] schestowitz
  • [07:12] schestowitz
    The Time My Nan Bought Me a Baby-G Watch
    [07:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-kevquirk.com | The Time My Nan Bought Me a Baby-G Watch - Kev Quirk [07:12] schestowitz
    [07:12] schestowitz

    Back in the 1990s I wanted a G-Shock watch, so my nan bought me one for Christmas. Heres the story of what happened to that watch

    [07:12] schestowitz
    [07:12] schestowitz
    • [07:38] schestowitz https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/mp-madarsa-shocker-maulvi-molests-5-yr-old-in-khandwa-sent-to-judicial-custody/ar-AA13ujxv? [07:38] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.msn.com | MP Madarsa SHOCKER! Maulvi molests 5-yr-old in Khandwa, sent to judicial custody ● Oct 31 [11:04] *qa2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [11:06] *qa2 (~sid145515@frp6gv52kp9fi.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 31 [14:13] *Mio14 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) ● Oct 31 [15:57] *Disconnected (). [15:58] *Disconnected (Connection reset by peer). [15:58] *Now talking on #techbytes ● Oct 31 [16:07] *Now talking on #techbytes [16:07] *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast [16:07] *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021 [16:07] *Now talking on #techbytes [16:18] *Disconnected (Connection reset by peer). [16:19] *Now talking on #techbytes [16:19] *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast [16:19] *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021 [16:19] *acer-box (~acer-box@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:19] *rianne_ (~rianne@freenode-rq7.0m6.7132oi.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:19] *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *techrights-sec3 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *libertybox__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *schestowitz[TR2] has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *schestowitz[TR] has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *schestowitz__[TR] (~roy@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:19] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *schestowitz_log has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:19] *roy_techrights has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *Techrights-sec2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *schestowitz has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:20] *schestowitz[TR] (~schestowitz[TR]@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:20] *libertybox (~schestowitz_log@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:20] *rianne (~rianne@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:20] *libertybox__ (~schestowitz_log@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:21] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:49] *libertybox is now known as techrights-sec1 [16:49] *roy_ is now known as ts2 [16:49] *acer-box is now known as schestowitz-TR2 [16:53] *asusbox2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:53] *rianne_ (~rianne@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:54] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:54] *asusbox (~rianne@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 31 [19:02] schestowitz__[TR] http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/the-upc-hopes-and-headaches/ [19:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | The UPC - Hopes and Headaches - Kluwer Patent Blog [19:02] schestowitz__[TR] " [19:02] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:02] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 9:20 PM [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Dear Thorsten, [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] You are not the only one having concerns about part-time judges. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] In other publications on this blog, Concerned observer has brought forward similar concerns. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/klaus-grabinski-and-florence-butin-presidents-of-the-unified-patent-court/ [19:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Klaus Grabinski and Florence Butin Presidents of the Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] As far as the question of part time judges is concerned, I would like to add the following. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Marketing their judicial roles by part-time judges should be absolutely prohibited. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] In view of the part-time participation of judges, a high number of recusals of such part-time judges is to be expected. It is thus not only necessary to provide very strict rules governing conflicts of interest, but also a mechanism by which recusal of legal and technical judges will be possible. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] It is doubtful whether the provisions of Art 7(3-5) of the Statute are sufficient in these respects. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(3) deals with self-recusal or a decision of the chair of the court of first instance or the court of appeal considering that a judge should not sit or make submissions in a particular case. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(4) deals with recusals and does not say much. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(5) provides that any difficulty arising as to the application of Art 7 shall be settled by decision of the Presidium. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] At least at the boards of appeal EPO there are much clearer rules as to recusal. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] in any case the decision is not left to the chair or the Praesidium of the boards of appeal. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] It is also worth noting that according to Art 10 of the Statute a judge can be removed from office by decision of the Praesidium without the judge being offered any means of redress, besides the fact that he can be heard (which is a bare minimum). In how far such a rule is conform to the constitution of numerous UPC contracting states remains to be seen. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] In IP matters there very few countries in which part time judges are acting at least in first instance and not in appeal. One is the UK, the other one is Switzerland. Those are two countries which are not participating in the UP/UPC system. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] In part of France, commercial chambers are also using lay judges, but not for matters relating to validity of infringement of IP rights. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Here again, it remains to be seen in how far the status of part-time judges is conform to the constitution of numerous UPC contracting states. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] It is possible that Belgium could also accepts part-time judges, but I am not sure. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] There is one former technical member of the boards of appeal of the EPO named in the pool of technical judges. One future former technical member has also be named in the pool. At least those two should have less conflicts of interests as part-time judges. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] As far as I can see, there are no former legal members of the boards of appeal which have been selected. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] It is ironical to see that most of the RPUPC have been inspired by the British system. And the UK has withdrawn its participation. Would it not have been wiser introduce some longer time limits as short time limits increase the pressure and costs, especially for European SMEs which are meant to benefit from the UP/UPC system. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] The UPC might be starting. We should however not forget the shoddy legal basis on which the whole UP/UPCA is standing. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] The UPCA has never been vetted by the CJEU, allegedly because nobody thought it! [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Even if the CJEU might not want to shake the whole construction, problems might occur when UPC decisions will have to be executed in EU/EPC member states. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Too many manifest problems have been swept under the carpet, Art 7(2) UPCA to name one. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] It will be interesting to see how members of the Munich and Paris sections of the central division will justify their competence in cases relating to life sciences. In view of your professional experience, you are probably very much interested in this matter. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Max Drei [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 9:45 PM [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Two thoughts: [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] 1. England has judges at first instance who are on secondment as it were, from their day job as a barrister within chambers. Nobody supposes that they have a conflict of interest or are biassed. But it is different when a judge is on secondment from a big international patent attorney firm with long term client relationships with a high proportion of the worlds most innovative mega-corporations. There, the potential for [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] conflicts of interest and divided loyalties is exponentially higher. Can we dismiss it as unecessary worry? The enthusiastic marketing efforts of the firms from whom the judges are drawn is prompting more cynicism. A ban on it sounds fine but in practice will, I suspect, achieve precisely nothing. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] 2. Some of us were cynical from the get-go about the usefulness of the UPC to anybody other than the mega-corporations and their fancy international private practive legal advice firms. Have we seen anything in the last few months to reduce that cynicism? Im not aware of anything. On the contrary, sorry to say. My feelings of cynicism just got boosted. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Spezlwirtschaft anyone? [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 10:35 PM [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] I would go a step further here: [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] The head of IP of Airbus is designated as a technical judge. So Airbus will not be able to be a party in proceedings before the UPC. [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] After all, when judges decide about a case where a party is the employer of their colleague, who would think they are impartial? And the UPC judges who are at the German courts or the patent office will also have to recuse themselves from cases with Airbus in their main jobs, I think [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Similarly, when a patent attorney is a technical judge, I dont think that his patent law firm partners can practice before the UPC. After all, again, the UPC judges would not (appear to) be impartial, when a partner of their colleague is working on a case [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] So, Mr. Bausch, I think your decision is good, you can still act before the UPC (unless one of your partners is a judge there?)! [19:03] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 4:43 AM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Dear Max Drei, [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] The cynicism is not coming from those having a critical view on the UP/UPC system, but from the staunch supporters of said system. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] They want to push their vision of patents and their (ab)use down the throat of European society. The best example of that cynicism is to claim that the UP/UPC system is for the benefit of the European industry and especially European SMEs. This is a blatant lie! It is for the benefit of mega-corporations and their fancy international private practice legal advice firms. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] In a French legal publication one of those supporters, Mr Casalonga, had the nerve to call those not supporting the UP/UPC system liars, hypocrites and against progress. Can you get less cynical than that? [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Adam Brown [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 11:00 AM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] That was the same criticism for ISDS tribunals, judges in the morning, lawyers in the afternoon. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Boosters will find a way to argue both jobs are compatible. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 3:34 PM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] ISDS Tribunals are actually arbitration chambers. They are acting in case of differences between a state and an investor. They are dealing on a private level. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] It does thus not matter whether the arbitrators are lawyers in the morning and judges in the afternoon. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] In view of their special character ISDS are as such a disgrace and any government accepting that they can intervene should be sent to oblivion. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] If I am not wrong, this is one of the reasons why CETA is not yet ratified by many countries! [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] By the way, the UPCA has foreseen two arbitration chambers, one in Ljubljana and one in Lisbon. Who will be the arbitrators sitting in those chambers? [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] We might have there the same disastrous situation as in ISDS arbitration? [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Another reason why the UPCA is not something to look forward to it! [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Millipede [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 11:44 AM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] In the Netherlands the principle of substitute judges is well known and also the specialized patent courts, both the first instance and the appeal court, have recruited in many, if not all cases judges coming from the specific field of interest. In 2013, however, it was decided that the courts should no longer employ persons that were still professionally active (and which possibly also could show up before the courts of which they were [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] part). So this meant that practicing lawyers and patent attorneys were no longer able to sit on the court, unless they refrained from their active jobs, I.e. they should remove themselves from the list of representatives. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Curious mind [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 5:15 PM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Why on earth is it necessary to have part-time judges? [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Either the people are judges or are lawyers/representatives! But not both at the same time! [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Max Drei [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 11:14 PM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Why must there be part-time judges? I dont know but I have a guess. The proponents of the UPC want it to be a success from the outset. So they need top quality judges, persons who are not going to be bamboozled by the top quality law firms employed by the mega corps doing the litigating at the UPC, persons who reliably can gallop at a good lick through the thousands of words of any one case, who can immediately understand the content of a [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] case and who at the end of it all can write a persuasive reasoned decision that commands general acceptance, not ridicule [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Where to find such persons? Only in top positions in the patent litigation industry. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] But how can such persons be persuaded to resign their current exalted and lucrative situation and volunteer instead to be a judge in a court system with a current caseload of precisely zero? In England, for being such a learned and eminent judge they get to be given the title Lord So-and-So. Nothing like that is on offer here. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] So, these persons are all hedging, all agreeing to be a judge only on condition that they can keep their day job as well. And I say, who can blame them? [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 23, 2022 AT 10:14 PM [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Dear Max Drei, [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] You might be right with your assumption. But it cannot be left unchallenged. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] Your assumption does however not change the fact that nobody can serve two masters at the same time. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] It is thus to be expected that part-time judges will be faced with a recusal quite often. Even the slightest potential doubt about the independence of a part-time judge should lead to its recusal. [19:04] schestowitz__[TR] As far as technical judges are concerned the situation is as follows: [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] In a local or regional court of first instance, the technical judge is the 4th judge of a panel normally only composed of 3 legally qualified members. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] At the central division 1 technically qualified judge is sitting next to 2 legally qualified members. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] At the court of appeal a panel will be composed of 3 legally qualified members and to 2 technically qualified members. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] The influence of a technically qualified judge is thus expected to be higher at the central division and at the court of appeal than in a local or regional court. A recusal might be thus more frequent at the central division and at the court of appeal. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] It is also worth remembering that the Federal Constitutional Court has decided in March 2020 that some persons may be acting as judges for a given length of time, but not part-time. However, there are two conditions to be fulfilled: they have to be civil servants for life time and cannot be reappointed. It is difficult to reconcile those conditions with part-time judges, whether legally or technically qualified. Only judges serving for their [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] life time in a national court could therefore be appointed as part-time judges. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] The notion of part-time judge is thus highly disputable, especially for technical judges. I wonder how this is at all compatible with the constitution of some member states. It is not difficult to foresee that decisions in which part-time judges have taken part will be challenged at a national level about their legitimacy, even at the FCC. In such a situation, the FCC cannot say, as some members did at the time of first complaint, that the [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] plaintiff has no direct interest and its referral should be dismissed at once. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] It might look very pragmatic to involve part-time judges, but the constitutionality of such a participation have never been checked. Another failure of the UPCA. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] How can a tribunal comprising part-time judges be a tribunal of contracting states of the EU when this notion is largely unknown at national level? Another oddity of the UPC. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Pandoras box is opening slowly but surely. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Concerned observer [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 24, 2022 AT 1:55 PM [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Max, if you want to figure out the reasoning for most decisions, just follow the money. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Thus, another possibility and, in my view, likelihood relates to the fact that the UPC will be a self-financing court. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] That is, despite the many, many (dirty) tricks that have been deployed in order to boost the UPCs case load from the get-go, the fact remains that the UPC will find it hard to balance its finances in the short term. The Participating Member States could have addressed this problem by agreeing to cover any shortfalls in the UPCs formative years. This could have allowed the UPC to recruit all of its judges on a full time basis. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] However, that would have cost the Participating Member States money, and so was never going to happen. So what alternative solution could be found? It seems that we now have our answer: important principles of judicial impartiality will need to give a little in order to accommodate part-time, and hence cheaper, judges that also happen to be active litigators in the same field. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Another relevant point is that the UPC does not (at least not completely, and certainly not in the short term) do away with the need for national courts that handle patent litigation field in Europe. The national courts of the Participating Member States will therefore need to retain the same number of judges. This obviously limits the number of UPC judges that could be drawn from national judiciaries. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] In this way, the design flaws of the UPC have led to further sub-optimal compromises. As the UPC started life as a sub-sub-optimal compromise, I think that it is safe to say that it is now so badly compromised as to be unworkable (at least in the sense that it will struggle to command the necessary level of trust in judgements that will have very significant economic consequences for the parties involved). [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] UPC watcher [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 23, 2022 AT 4:49 PM [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Thorsten Bausch has been right to keep away from becoming a UPC judge, and he is to be thanked for raising the conflict of interests issue. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Beyond this issue taken in a narrow sense, it is inevitable that UPC decisions will affect business interests of the organisation in which the part-time technical judge works, be it a law firm or a company, especially when a decision involves policy issues, and this will likely be frequent. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] In addition, technical judges will have quite normally policy preferences linked to their background and current position, for example a pro-patentee stance or a strong loyalty to the EPO doctrines or those of other national patent offices. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Much will depend on the role of the technical judges in the decision-making process of the UPC. If they act in a way similar to court-appointed technical experts and have limited influence on policy issues, their technical expertise will be valuable. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 23, 2022 AT 10:36 PM [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] As it is foreseen to have a pool of technically qualified judges, why is it considered necessary to call upon: [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] experts of the court, or [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] even experts of the parties? [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] See R 185(1): Where the Court must resolve a specific technical or other question in relation to the action, it may of its own motion, and after hearing the parties, appoint a court expert. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] It thus not to be expected that technical judges will act in a way similar to court-appointed technical experts and have limited influence on policy issues. [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Their technical expertise might be valuable, but at what price? [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] " [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/klaus-grabinski-and-florence-butin-presidents-of-the-unified-patent-court/ [19:05] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Klaus Grabinski and Florence Butin Presidents of the Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] " [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Jan Van Hoey [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 1:25 PM [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Mr Grabinski was active in the Working Group that wrote the Rules of Procedure (RoP), should there be a rule of seperation of powers that the executive should not write its own rules? [19:05] schestowitz__[TR] Concerned observer [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 6:33 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] An interesting point, and one to which I would say that the answer is yes. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] In G 1/21, the EBA excluded their Chair, on the grounds that his prior involvement in the making of rules precluded him from ruling on the interpretation of those rules. Sadly, this was not based upon rules governing a separation of powers, but instead upon the fact that the Chairs rule-making role gave rise to an objectively justifiable fear of partiality. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] It would be extremely disappointing if the UPC did not (at least effectively) enforce a strict separation of powers in what seems to be an equivalent situation. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Concerned observer [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 2:11 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Whilst the level of excitement seems to be growing in certain circles, I cannot help but wonder the extent to which those circles are paying attention to the views of the average patent applicant, and of SME applicants in particular. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] There is no doubt that, for many patent holders, the UPC will achieve the precise opposite of what its proponents promised to deliver. That is, it will make patent litigation in Europe: [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] i) more complicated (not least by adding a new, completely independent court into the mix of national and EPO instances that will deliver decisions on the provisions of the EPC); [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] ii) far less predictable (with uncertainties, including over the applicable law(s) of infringement, being far too many to mention); [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] iii) harder to manage (in view of the astonishingly short deadlines); and [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] iv) far more expensive for all litigants (except perhaps those that previously would have run multiple, parallel cases in Participating Member States). [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] This is before one even considers uncertainties relating to whether the whole set-up is unlawful / unconstitutional (again, on grounds far too numerous to mention). [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Thus, whilst I understand the excitement involved in breathing life into a new system, it strikes me that very little attention is being paid to its extremely serious shortcomings. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] In this regard, whilst I can see that there may have been little choice to do otherwise, the selection of so many judges that will continue their separate employment as patent litigators / attorneys does point to an immediate need for the UPC to establish VERY strict rules governing conflicts of interest. It also begs the question of how the UPC will handle the possibility that certain attorneys / litigators (or their firms) may seek to entice [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] clients by marketing their judicial roles. Food for thought indeed. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Sharing concerns [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 6:37 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] I share your doubts/objections/concerns. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] The double role of judge and patent attorney/lawyer is of special concern. How can one be certain they they is no direct or indirect conflict of interest or benefit from one role for the other? Some IP law firms are already advertising that their attorneys are on the list of judges, on their website or on LinkedIn [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Patent robot [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 3:29 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Who are the judges of the UPC section in London? [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Sharing concerns [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 6:39 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] They Br-Exited. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Waiting to be moved to Milan I guess. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 8:30 PM [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] I can only but support the last entry of Concerned observer. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] As far as the question of part time judges is concerned, I would like to add the following. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Marketing their judicial roles by part-time judges should be absolutely prohibited. this should have been settled in the Statute. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] In view of the part-time participation of judges, a high number of recusals of such part-time judges is to be expected. It is thus not only necessary to provide very strict rules governing conflicts of interest, but also a mechanism by which recusal of legal and technical judges will be possible. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] It is doubtful whether the provisions of Art 7(3-5) of the Statute are sufficient in these respects. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(3) deals with self-recusal or a decision of the chair of the court of first instance or the court of appeal considering that a judge should not sit or make submissions in a particular case. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(4) deals with recusals and does not say much. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] Art 7(5) provides that any difficulty arising as to the application of Art 7 shall be settled by decision of the Presidium. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] At least at the boards of appeal EPO there are much clearer rules as to recusal. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] in any case the decision is not left to the chair or the Praesidium of the boards of appeal. [19:06] schestowitz__[TR] It is also worth noting that according to Art 10 of the Statute a judge can be removed from office by decision of the Praesidium without the judge being offered any means of redress, besides the fact that he can be heard (which is a bare minimum). In how far such a rule is conform to the constitution of numerous UPC contracting states remains to be seen. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] In IP matters there very few countries in which part time judges are acting at least in first instance and not in appeal. One is the UK, the other one is Switzerland. Those are two countries which are not participating in the UP/UPC system. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] In part of France, commercial chambers are also using lay judges, but not for matters relating to validity of infringement of IP rights. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Here again, it remains to be seen in how far the status of part-time judges is conform to the constitution of numerous UPC contracting states. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] It is possible that Belgium could also accepts part-time judges, but I am not sure. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] It is ironical to see that most of the RPUPC have been inspired by the British system. And the UK has withdrawn its participation. Would it not have been wiser introduce some longer time limits as short time limits increase the pressure and costs, especially for European SMEs which are meant to benefit from the UP/UPC system. [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Sharing concerns [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 21, 2022 AT 9:45 PM [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Will there be a listing for all part-time judges of their other jobs, their clients, etc so third parties can check possible conflict of interest? [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Attentive Observer [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] OCTOBER 22, 2022 AT 4:49 AM [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] It is to be feared that it will be like for MPs. Did you ever see a list of the jobs and clients they get income from next to their wages as MPs? [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Did you ever see a list of all the lobbies trying to influence MPs and their contacts with the latter? [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Nope!! [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] Why should it be different here? [19:07] schestowitz__[TR] " ● Oct 31 [21:08] *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:08] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:09] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [21:13] *rianne (~rianne@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:13] *rianne_ (~rianne@freenode-rq7.0m6.7132oi.IP) has joined #techbytes [21:14] *liberty_box_ (~liberty@8c8xccu4g26qw.irc) has joined #techbytes