●● IRC: #boycottnovell @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, October 01, 2021 ●● ● Oct 01 [00:36] *rianne_ (~rianne@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [00:37] schestowitz https://social.tchncs.de/@scops/106889478366028733 [00:37] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-social.tchncs.de | scops: "@tuxmachines@mastodon.technology SoftMaker Office" - Mastodon [00:37] schestowitz "SoftMaker Office is missing!" [00:37] schestowitz https://mastodon.social/@leszek/106838269971025162 [00:37] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-mastodon.social | leszek: "@tuxmachines@mastodon.technology also e-mail prov" - Mastodon [00:37] schestowitz "also e-mail provider block it relatively quickly if you sent too many mails after one another" [00:37] *liberty_box (~liberty@qhduu73fcjmdn.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [00:37] schestowitz https://social.tchncs.de/@scops/106821040517611657 [00:37] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-social.tchncs.de | scops: "@tuxmachines@mastodon.technology i hope the next " - Mastodon [00:37] schestowitz " i hope the next release(s) focuses more on (optional) touch screen input. still stock gnome 40 on debian is much more useable than Odin on a tablet device..." [00:40] schestowitz http://techrights.org/2021/09/24/spamnil-zdnet-lf-greenwashing-microsoft/ [00:41] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | [Meme] Linux Foundation is Greenwashing Microsoft Again, Misusing the Linux Brand Like Nobodys Business | Techrights ● Oct 01 [01:32] schestowitz https://www.fosslife.org/how-use-sleep-and-wait-commands-linux [01:32] schestowitz " [01:32] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.fosslife.org | How to Use the Sleep and Wait Commands on Linux [01:32] schestowitz The Linux sleep and wait commands "allow you to run commands at a chosen pace or capture and display the exit status of a task after waiting for it to finish," explains Sandra Henry-Stocker. [01:32] schestowitz In this article, youll learn the difference between these commands and when and how to use them through simple examples. [01:32] schestowitz " ● Oct 01 [03:04] *activelow has quit (Quit: rebooting) ● Oct 01 [09:06] schestowitz-TR personal view: getting ill twice in a few months, when they already tell you it'll happen a third time and don't show very convincing results (efficacy a lot lower than advertised) if no way to convince the spouse/partner to follow suit just yet [09:06] schestowitz-TR *is [09:11] schestowitz-TR I monitor the results here (also elsewhere) on a daily basis and speak to family a lot about this...rianne and I noticed that many people here are BACK to masks and distancing, which I think can help explain some improvements [09:12] schestowitz-TR social control media showing its true fact this year, cracking down on "foreign agents" (media) not for politics or elections but "safety" [09:12] schestowitz-TR *face ● Oct 01 [10:38] *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:38] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 01 [11:20] schestowitz x https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital-security/democratizing-cybersecurity/86670732 [11:20] schestowitz # why no advancements are made in making development processes produce more [11:20] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com | Democratizing cybersecurity, IT News, ET CIO [11:20] schestowitz # secure results [11:21] schestowitz https://joindiaspora.com/posts/21674650 [11:21] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: Deb Nicholson is leaving https://opensource.org/OutgoingGMReflections same year as Bully de Blanc, but damage was done: http://techrights.org/2021/02/09/freesw-license-redefined/ [11:21] schestowitz # will the replacements be worse? [11:21] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> opensource.org | Open Source is a Relay Race: Reflections from our Outgoing Interim General Manager | Open Source Initiative [11:21] schestowitz The ones they're hired to lead is a lot less bad than I imagined [11:21] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> techrights.org | GNOME Foundation and OSI Move on to Extend Phase Against the Free Software Definition (or Against Software Freedom) | Techrights [11:41] Techrights-sec Good. [11:41] Techrights-sec But it would be nice if there were beneficial people brought in for a change. [11:42] schestowitz-TR very unlikely, but at least some of the very worst are out, so we have less 'firefighting' to worry about. GNOME Fdn. has also been quiet lately. [11:45] Techrights-sec It's probably a mistake but I've been ignoring GNOME for ages, since [11:45] Techrights-sec it became IMHO unviable. ● Oct 01 [14:30] Techrights-sec ssh: connect to host gemini.techrights.org port 22: No route to host [14:30] schestowitz-TR looking into it [14:37] Techrights-sec also: [14:37] Techrights-sec $ ping -c 5 gemini.techrights.org [14:37] Techrights-sec PING home.techrights.org (81.154.172.85) 56(84) bytes of data. [14:37] Techrights-sec --- home.techrights.org ping statistics --- [14:37] Techrights-sec 5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 4047ms [14:37] Techrights-sec (from TR) [14:37] schestowitz-TR yes, two of my machines went offline and cannot connect for some reason. Router reboot worth trying? [14:38] Techrights-sec Not really, if you are able to connect outbound through it. Did it change IPv4 [14:38] Techrights-sec address on you just now? [14:38] schestowitz-TR no, no firmware upgrades, IP address the same, I just cannot connect from two laptop at all, very odd [14:39] Techrights-sec Can you connect to it via the LAN at all? [14:39] schestowitz-TR No, even with the GUIs it cannot establish a connection to the router. That started about 3 hours ago. [14:42] Techrights-sec Well if it does not change the IPv4 number you might powercycle the router, but [14:42] Techrights-sec that's just cargo culting and may not help as much as it disrupts/ [14:42] schestowitz-TR the other computers were not affected at all and reboots don't tell what went wrong. [14:44] *Despatche (~desp@u3xy9z2ifjzci.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [14:45] Techrights-sec What about restarting the networking services on just the systems affected? [14:45] schestowitz-TR I doubt it is in any way relatede to 30 Sept bug [14:46] Techrights-sec no idea [14:47] schestowitz-TR "DHCP look-up failed" [14:53] Techrights-sec How long are the leases on the machines which still work? [14:53] Techrights-sec ^DHCP leases [14:53] schestowitz-TR I am not sure what leases means in this context, but on router settings I toggled off "always use this IP address" and it still doesn't help [14:54] schestowitz-TR one is raspi OS and the other crouton [14:55] Techrights-sec Which distros are on the disfunctional machines? [14:55] Techrights-sec I'm not sure of crouton but raspberry pi OS should be: [14:55] Techrights-sec sudo systemctl restart networking [14:56] Techrights-sec Also do the ports on the modem show any lights + blinking when that is run? ● Oct 01 [15:01] schestowitz-TR I am looking at router logs [15:01] schestowitz-TR it just names the devices and show they were disconnected [15:12] Techrights-sec There should be lights on the Ethernet ports. There should be one light [15:12] Techrights-sec when the physical connection is established and another as packets are [15:12] Techrights-sec transmitted. Are either LED on each Ethernet port shining at all? [15:12] Techrights-sec sudo journalctl -u networking [15:12] Techrights-sec ? [15:12] Techrights-sec tail -n 100 -f /var/log/daemon.log | awk '$5~/^avahi-daemon/||$5~/^dhcpcd/' [15:17] schestowitz-TR "timed out waiting for DHCP lease" [15:18] Techrights-sec Then it might be the connection, is it Ethernet or WiFi? [15:18] schestowitz-TR wifi [15:19] Techrights-sec :( [15:19] Techrights-sec Maybe it is time to try restarting the router? [15:19] schestowitz-TR will try [15:22] *Disconnected (Connection reset by peer). [15:23] *Now talking on #boycottnovell [15:23] *Topic for #boycottnovell is: TechRights.org | Channel #boycottnovell for http://TechRights.org | Free Software Sentry watching and reporting maneuvers of those who oppose software freedom :: please also join channels #techrights and #boycottnovell-social [15:23] *Topic for #boycottnovell set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:22:10 2021 [15:24] *Techrights-sec (~quassel@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:31] *rianne_ (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:31] *rianne (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:31] *asusbox (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:32] *liberty_box (~liberty@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:33] *activelow (~activelow@yti5a4gtx98cg.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [15:35] schestowitz-TR the reboot seems to have 'fixed' it (both computers), but now I have lots of tasks [15:36] Techrights-sec reboot is a very disruptive approach [15:37] schestowitz-TR also taught me nothing about why it happened [15:40] Techrights-sec indeed but it was a proprietary router? ● Oct 01 [16:31] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Oct 01 [18:04] schestowitz-TR the process that logs to ~/gemini/logs stopped working after the outage and i've checked but cannot remember how to get it fixed. iirc, it needs root to get running and is a daemon [18:08] Techrights-sec :) [18:08] Techrights-sec ack [18:08] Techrights-sec sudo systemctl restart gemini-tcpdump-logger.service [18:09] Techrights-sec gemini-tcpdump-logger.service should have started automatically but [18:09] Techrights-sec systemd is so deceptively complicated [18:10] Techrights-sec Obviously something is missing [18:10] Techrights-sec from the service file, but what? It currently complies with the documentat [18:10] Techrights-sec as far as I can tell. [18:11] Techrights-sec see also: [18:11] Techrights-sec sudo journalctl -xe -u gemini-tcpdump-logger.service [18:12] schestowitz-TR I could not fathom a reason why merely having no connection for a few hours can cause this, except maybe IP address change, but it's LAN [18:13] schestowitz-TR logging works ok now :-D I have added this to my "if connection goes down" notes/cheatsheet, which is already very long, maybe 40 lines [18:13] Techrights-sec I am suspecting in other cases too that systemd does not handle changes [18:13] Techrights-sec to the network gracefully. Changing either IP or Network seems to cause [18:13] Techrights-sec a fatal, irrecoverable error. [18:14] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [18:14] schestowitz-TR file a bug repo... I mean "ISSUE" in ShitHub [18:14] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [18:14] schestowitz-TR before IBM fires a developer who can fix it [18:17] Techrights-sec EWONTFIX [18:17] Techrights-sec It doesn't have to work, it just has to decommoditize GNU/Linux and lock [18:17] Techrights-sec people into IBM's subscription "products". [18:17] schestowitz-TR I am furious an LF et al [18:18] schestowitz-TR My older machines started shouting yesterday about root cert (you know the issue). Those are rather obsolete machines, but those stupid cert mills do little for ACTUAL cicurity while creating a pile of e-waste... perfectly fine products that won't work anymore. I found a workaround, but "DEVICES" lack access for fixes. CRIMINAL sending billions of devices to landfills. [18:20] Techrights-sec yes, I read about that. It causes problems in many areas. [18:21] schestowitz-TR not the first such controversies, with some older android phones unable to even access any sites for "security" reasons... and no workarounds. who benefits? some of the companies that bankroll these cert mills, putting padlocks on everything, even read-only stuff [18:22] Techrights-sec Certs have been one giant pyramid scheme. [18:22] schestowitz-TR literall a pyramid [18:22] Techrights-sec TR could start selling certificates [18:22] Techrights-sec as a side activity for income. :/ Yes, literally a pyramid. [18:22] schestowitz-TR you might say ubuntu was started by MLM scam artist from SA [18:23] Techrights-sec Yes, literally a pyramid. It's just a [18:23] Techrights-sec key signed by another key x n. [18:25] *rianne_ (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [18:25] schestowitz Fwd: Are software patents evil? #askbastian [18:25] schestowitz If youve been following me for some time, youll probably guess my answer: [18:25] schestowitz Are software patents evil? #askbastian [18:25] schestowitz Are software patents evil? #askbastian [18:25] schestowitz Whats your burning question about patents for the digital future? Hit reply and ask away. [18:26] schestowitz Fwd: Patents for the digital future (presentation slides in German) [18:26] schestowitz Bastian Best [18:26] schestowitz Bastian Best [18:26] schestowitz @https://twitter.com/bastianbest [18:26] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 400 @ https://mobile.twitter.com/bastianbest ) [18:26] schestowitz I recently had the pleasure to speak about my favorite topic in front of 50 attorneys-at-law (online) at the 11th NRW IT-Rechtstag 2021. [18:26] schestowitz Meanwhile, I uploaded the slide deck to Slideshare (its in German): [18:26] schestowitz Patente fr die digitale Zukunft (Bastian Best, 2021-09-16) [18:26] schestowitz Patente fr die digitale Zukunft (Bastian Best, 2021-09-16) [18:26] schestowitz Die Folien meines Vortrags auf dem 11. NRW IT-Rechtstag 2021 am 16. September 2021 [18:26] schestowitz www.slideshare.net [18:26] schestowitz I recorded myself on video while I was giving the talk, and Im thinking about turning the raw recording and the slides into a nice video for YouTube. Since this was a one hour long talk, Im somewhat shying away from the effort, though. [18:26] schestowitz Question to you: Would you watch a one hour long conference talk recording about Patente fr die digitale Zukunft? [18:26] *liberty_box (~liberty@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [18:26] schestowitz Re: APP(LE) Association [18:26] schestowitz > https://www.kidonip.com/frightful-five/on-deceptive-apps-and-practices-unmasking-the-act-apple-association/ [18:26] schestowitz > http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/10/not-class-act-so-called-app-association.html [18:26] schestowitz > [18:26] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.kidonip.com | On Deceptive Apps and Practices: Unmasking the ACT App(le) Association - KIDON IP [18:26] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.fosspatents.com | FOSS Patents: Not a class ACT: the so-called App Association is simply an Apple Association and does NOT represent app developers' interests in fair distribution terms [18:27] schestowitz Zuck's crap. Another laundry cycle. [18:32] schestowitz Fwd: US-style AI patent claim drafting tips [18:32] schestowitz I came across an interesting article by DLA Pipers Joseph Wolfe titled Claim drafting strategies for artificial intelligence innovations. [18:32] schestowitz The article mostly addresses patent-eligibility issues with AI inventions in the US. What caught my attention was that describing the training process appears to be helpful to overcome the eligibility challenge: [18:32] schestowitz One way to avoid the subject matter groupings is to describe a training process for the prediction model. The USPTO has provided that such training process falls outside of the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings. For example, in the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples published simultaneously with the January 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance, the USPTO included a machine learning based claim for consideration. The USPTO [18:32] schestowitz provided that such training functionality falls outside of the mathematical concept and metal processes grouping. [18:32] schestowitz Heres the link to the full article (thanks to ML4Patents): [18:39] Techrights-sec See commit e18edf970645431b736e8af231e9ea07fc7a8d53 [18:40] schestowitz-TR I see now [18:41] Techrights-sec Goes in /lib/systemd/system/ [18:41] Techrights-sec followed by [18:41] Techrights-sec sudo systemctl daemon-reload [18:41] Techrights-sec sudo systemctl restart gemini-tcpdump-logger.service [18:41] schestowitz-TR I am going to take a nap and when I wake up I will improve my gemini monitoring for downtimes, as today we had a long one that was possible to avoid [18:42] Techrights-sec Though the correct location is /etc/systemd/system since it is a local [18:42] Techrights-sec modification and not provided by a packaged. [18:42] Techrights-sec Ok. I may power down for a while soon. It depends. [18:42] schestowitz-TR I will catch up with things during the weekend; today had some annoyances, did not manage to write much ● Oct 01 [19:02] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:03] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:10] *activelow has quit (connection closed) [19:10] *activelow (~activelow@geta5bxg5ug98.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [19:30] *rianne_ (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [19:31] *liberty_box (~liberty@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Oct 01 [20:10] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:10] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:12] *rianne_ (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [20:13] *liberty_box (~liberty@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell ● Oct 01 [22:06] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:06] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:26] *rianne_ (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [22:26] *asusbox2 (~rianne@ctqz25uirqr88.irc) has joined #boycottnovell [22:27] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:27] *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:53] schestowitz > We need your help to file a former complaint that should make the [22:53] schestowitz > whole thing collapse. [22:53] schestowitz > [22:53] schestowitz > We need to list and find the 4 impact assessments that the European [22:53] schestowitz > Commission had to provide when it makes proposals: [22:53] schestowitz > [22:53] schestowitz > 2009: the IA is the Harhoff study??? [22:53] schestowitz > 2011: this IA is covering the 2 regulations but not the UPCA [22:54] schestowitz > https://web.archive.org/web/20120813053300/https://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/sec2011-482-final_en.pdf [22:54] schestowitz > 2011: I am looking for the Impact Assessment covering the UPCA [22:54] schestowitz I will ask around. ● Oct 01 [23:06] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/28/germany-and-slovenia-ratify-protocol-on-provisional-application-unified-patent-court/#comments [23:06] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Germany and Slovenia ratify Protocol on Provisional Application Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog [23:06] schestowitz " [23:06] schestowitz Andre Frans [23:06] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 1:52 AM [23:06] schestowitz Brexit implications suddenly vaporized, why this question is not addressed in the Council document? [23:06] schestowitz REPLY [23:06] schestowitz Patent robot [23:06] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 9:48 AM [23:06] schestowitz Copied from the EU Council website today: [23:06] schestowitz Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC) [23:06] schestowitz United Kingdom: Withdrawal of ratification received on, and effective as from, 20/07/2020 [23:06] schestowitz REPLY [23:06] schestowitz Campinos [23:06] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 10:36 AM [23:06] schestowitz This also applies to small and medium-sized companies that make a significant contribution to the innovative potential of our country. [23:06] schestowitz Court fees of the UPC for cancelling a patent are 20.000EUR. In Czech Republic, they are 80EUR. [23:06] schestowitz Lawyers fees will also be on the rise, due to the tight agenda of 12 months imposed by the UPC. [23:07] schestowitz Refundable amounts are too low, so even if you are in yoru own right, you wont be fully refunded. [23:07] schestowitz So much the its also good for SMEs. [23:07] schestowitz Mdme Lamberts has a different calculator than mine. [23:07] schestowitz REPLY [23:07] schestowitz Concerned observer [23:07] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 12:58 PM [23:07] 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)? [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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 [23:07] schestowitz law? [23:07] schestowitz REPLY [23:07] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:07] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 8:03 PM [23:07] schestowitz Your comment is very interesting and you raise a real problem. [23:07] schestowitz When do you state that the UPC does not have any legal basis are you aiming at Art 7(2)UPCA? [23:07] 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? [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] schestowitz But wanting to go through the wall for the sake of a return on investment will end up with a similar result. [23:07] schestowitz REPLY [23:07] schestowitz Concerned observer [23:07] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:32 AM [23:07] schestowitz Attentive, [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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. [23:07] 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 [23:07] schestowitz current 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. [23:07] 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 [23:07] schestowitz of law. [23:07] schestowitz REPLY [23:07] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:07] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 7:16 PM [23:07] schestowitz If I understand you well you are of the opinion that any judge recruited under the PAP, or thereafter, cannot exercise his duties correctly due to a justifiable fear of partiality on questions that will be crucial to determining whether the current UPCA provides sound legal basis for the UPC. [23:07] schestowitz With reference to Art 3(1) PAP you consider that, since the UK is still mandatory signatory of the PAP, any recruitment during the PAP is void ab initio as the recruited judge cannot decide that the PAP has a legal basis. [23:08] schestowitz Am I correct? [23:08] schestowitz REPLY [23:08] schestowitz Concerned observer [23:08] schestowitz OCTOBER 1, 2021 AT 12:36 PM [23:08] schestowitz Attentive, [23:08] schestowitz If the UPC were to operate without a valid legal basis (under the PAP and/or the UPCA), then it would not be a valid legal entity. [23:08] schestowitz At least the references in the PAP to the UK, and in the UPCA to London, provide prima facie reasons to believe that there is no valid basis under international law to bring either instrument into force. In other words, it would seem that the only valid way to proceed would be to draft (and separately ratify) new instruments that exclude references to the UK and London. [23:08] schestowitz If the UPC is not a valid legal entity, then this would call into question the legitimacy of any UPC judges contract of employment (and hence whether they were appointed in a manner according to the law). [23:08] schestowitz Thus, a UPC judge would not be able to reach a negative conclusion regarding the legal basis for the UPC (under the PAP or the UPCA) without calling into question his or her own legitimacy. Under these circumstances, which judge of the UPC could ever be seen as an impartial arbiter of the question of the legal basis for the UPC? [23:08] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:08] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 5:56 PM [23:08] schestowitz The civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have had their hands guided all along by external lobbyists. [23:08] 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. [23:08] 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. [23:08] 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? [23:08] schestowitz Such an absence of sense of the realities is flabbergasting. [23:08] 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. [23:08] 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. [23:08] schestowitz Mrs Lamberts has definitely a different calculator, but we know where it comes from. [23:08] schestowitz Without amendment of Art 7(2)UPCA it is a fallacy to think that the UPCA is in conformity with Union law. [23:08] schestowitz REPLY [23:08] schestowitz Max Drei [23:08] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 AT 7:47 PM [23:08] 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. [23:08] 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 [23:08] 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. [23:08] 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. [23:08] schestowitz For those pushing the UPC, harm to our precious Rule of Law is mere collateral damage. [23:08] schestowitz REPLY [23:08] schestowitz Concerned observer [23:08] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:37 AM [23:08] schestowitz Max, [23:08] 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. [23:08] schestowitz REPLY [23:08] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:08] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:03 AM [23:08] schestowitz Dear Max Drei, [23:08] 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. [23:08] schestowitz The contrary is true and the big beneficiaries are the big industry, but even more internationally active lawyer firms specialised in litigation. [23:08] schestowitz Portugal and Slovenia have been bought off as an arbitration chamber was offered to them. [23:08] 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. [23:09] schestowitz I cannot accept that the Rule of Law is mere collateral damage. [23:09] 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. [23:09] schestowitz I have not yet given up the hope that in the end the rule of law will prevail. [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz Donna Montanna [23:09] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 9:59 AM [23:09] schestowitz The UPC has no backing by the people. Just the like EU. [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:09] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 7:20 PM [23:09] schestowitz I would not go as far for the EU. There are lots of criticisms, but I do not think that any referendum deciding to leave the EU would have any chance of success, even in countries which are at odds with the Commission. [23:09] schestowitz They would lose a lot of money. [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz Patent robot [23:09] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 11:48 AM [23:09] 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? [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz David Foster [23:09] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 1:35 PM [23:09] schestowitz The European Commission has cheated the Impact Assessment of the UPC. [23:09] schestowitz The Harhoff 2009 study was about the Community Patent, not the Unitary Patent. [23:09] 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. [23:09] schestowitz This is a intentional fraud. [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz Jan Verbist [23:09] schestowitz OCTOBER 1, 2021 AT 10:12 PM [23:09] schestowitz Does anybody know where is the UPCA Impact Assessment (IA)? [23:09] schestowitz In the IA on the 2 regulations, you can find this curious statement: [23:09] schestowitz https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2011:0483:FIN:EN:PDF [23:09] schestowitz Finally, this IA does not address the unified patent litigation system that follows a parallel work stream and will be subject to different legal instrument. [23:09] schestowitz FFII has also published some allegations in June: [23:09] schestowitz https://ffii.org/european-commission-cheated-unified-patent-courts-impact-assessment-to-hide-the-high-costs-for-smes/ [23:09] schestowitz according to a testimony we received [Margot Frohlinger] did not want to redo the impact assessment because it would attract critics. [23:09] schestowitz The Commission is obliged to ship Impact Assessments attached to each of their proposals (which was correctly done for the 2 regulations), why was it not done with the UPCA? [23:09] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ffii.org | European Commission cheated Unitary Patents Impact Assessment to hide its high costs for SMEs | FFII [23:09] schestowitz REPLY [23:09] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:09] schestowitz SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 AT 7:44 PM [23:09] schestowitz Those who claim that the UPC is good for European industry in general and SMEs in particular cannot believe what they are saying. [23:09] schestowitz The simply use the SMEs as fig leaf. [23:09] schestowitz There have been studies showing clearly that the UPC will have a deleterious effect on SMEs. [23:10] schestowitz I refer here at the study of Mr Dimitris Xenos The Impact of the European Patent system on SMEs and National States and the Advent of Unitary Patent available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3600384 [23:10] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-papers.ssrn.com | The Impact of the European Patent System on SMEs and National States and the Advent of Unitary Patent by Dimitris Xenos :: SSRN [23:10] schestowitz Why have countries like Poland and the Czech Republic refused to ratify the UPC? Because it will have a deleterious effect on their industry. [23:10] schestowitz REPLY [23:10] schestowitz Attentive Observer [23:10] schestowitz OCTOBER 1, 2021 AT 6:44 PM [23:10] schestowitz Dear Concerned Observer, [23:10] schestowitz I can fully subscribe to your view as far as the position of a judge acting under the UPC as it stands. [23:10] schestowitz But would it not be easy for such a judge to say that the subject-matter of the debate before the UPC is an infringement or nullity action and hence challenging the legality of the UPC is a not-admissible question? [23:10] schestowitz I fear that this might be the position of all judges also hoping to make the big buck at the UPC. They would not be so stupid as to saw the branch on which they are sitting? [23:10] schestowitz Before the entry in force of the UPC, its conformity with Union law has to be checked. It is not enough for its promoters to claim that it is conform. [23:10] schestowitz " [23:17] schestowitz https://githubmemory.com/repo/makeworld-the-better-one/amfora/issues/208 [23:17] -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-githubmemory.com | Tab auto-refresh - githubmemory [23:44] schestowitz see gemini.sh in gemini.techrights.org/home/links/ipfs/