(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| *rianne_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Mar 12 01:27 | |
| *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Mar 12 01:27 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 01:28 | |
| *liberty_box_ (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 01:28 | |
| *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) | Mar 12 02:10 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 12 02:10 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 02:56 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 02:56 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) | Mar 12 04:44 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) | Mar 12 04:44 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 04:47 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 04:47 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Mar 12 05:52 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Mar 12 05:53 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 05:56 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 05:57 | |
| Techrights-sec | academia | Mar 12 07:18 |
|---|---|---|
| Techrights-sec | It's all marketing: throw money at a person or project, prevent them | Mar 12 07:18 |
| Techrights-sec | from working with FOSS, and then without contributing otherwise, | Mar 12 07:18 |
| Techrights-sec | tack a "and M$ Research" onto the authors' list. | Mar 12 07:18 |
| Techrights-sec | I consider it in the same category as EDGI | Mar 12 07:18 |
| Techrights-sec | as for research they are on par with Muppet Labs | Mar 12 07:18 |
| schestowitz | I have successfully de-escalated this | Mar 12 07:18 |
| Techrights-sec | excellent | Mar 12 07:31 |
| Techrights-sec | veryt important | Mar 12 07:31 |
| *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 12 07:43 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Mar 12 07:43 | |
| schestowitz | diplomacy (with employer, hosts etc.) has long helped us survive and thrive in the face of attacks. All this happened just about the same time I was warned out upcoming series (GDPR abuses etc.) would cause massive pushbash. | Mar 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz | *our | Mar 12 08:09 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 5, 2021 AT 6:36 PM | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Dear Thorsten, | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | I would not say that we have “the” salad. On the one hand, we now have the assurance that the UPC complaints will not be dealt with in 2021. On the other hand we have a kind of salad, but this is nothing new since UK withdrew from the UPC. It was clear that with Art 7(2) as it stands, UPC could not enter into force. And all the proponents of the UPC knew it damn well, but they simply did not want to face reality. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Looking at the way the second ratification bill was presented to the Parliament, MPs could not do anything else but ratify. I would not call the list of cases to be dealt with by the FCC a liar’s list, but rather the explanatory statement annexed to the second ratification bill. But we all know who held the pen of the writers of this document in the ministry of justice. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | When the second ratification was decided, I said that the proponents of the UPC might have won a battle, but certainly not the war. Shortly after it became known that there were two new complaints filed, all the proponents of the UPC were heralding that like for the first case, dismissal of the complaints is on the doorstep. It was a matter of 6 months at best. Now we know it is not a matter of 6 months, but probably much much more. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | I have even heard one of them saying that the President of the German Republic should have some…… (decency forbids saying more) and simply ignore the FCC so that the UPC can start as soon as possible. The complainants should not be allowed to hold up such a project which was in the interests of the whole EU (sic)! | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | I am wondering if the FCC does not simply play time. It is clear that the longer it will take to ratify, the less chances the UPC will have to ever open. If the interest for the UPC has died, what does help flogging a dead horse? The FCC could save itself a lot of work. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | The private interests of the UPC proponents, especially of the big law firms, will never die but the perspective of the big buck is becoming a kind of fata morgana. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | The situation is not as bad as in a famous fable of La Fontaine. The milk has not been all poured out of the pot. I would rather say the milk is curdling day by day. But the end result will be the same. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | As far as the question of the independence of the BA is concerned I hope that the FCC will force the BA to become truly independent from the head of the EPO. The BA are only independent by delegation of power from the latter. I do not call this independence or even the perception of independence. If one needed confirmation of the lack of independence of the BA, just look at G 3/19 and Art 15aRPBA2020. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | What is dearly missing is a revision instance for the BA. It is there for procedural matters, but not for substantive matters. And it is needed. The BA check whether the discretion of the first instance divisions has been properly exercised. Which body checks the exercise of discretion of the BA? In view of its case law it will certainly not be the EBA acting under Art 112aEPC. And yet with the RPBA2020 the discretion of the BA has | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | tremendously increased. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | When one also sees that the BA can decide ex-officio, without the slightest proof, what belongs to common general knowledge, this is also going a trifle too far. See T 1090/12 in examination and T 1370/15 in opposition. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 6, 2021 AT 3:19 PM | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer: “If one needed confirmation of the lack of independence of the BA, just look at G 3/19 and Art 15aRPBA2020” | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Just look at what the Enlarged Board itself said in G 2301/16, point 43 of the Reasons: | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | “As the Petitioner [the Administrative Council of the EPO] did not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied.” | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Wonder how the FCC could endorse such situation. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 8, 2021 AT 12:32 PM | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Dear Anonymous, | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | I fully agree with you that in G 2301/16 the EBA resisted the pressure of the office management. | Mar 12 08:22 |
| schestowitz | Did you compare the composition of the EBA in G 2301/16 and in G 3/19? | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The only one which is left from G 2301/16 is the rapporteur in G 3/19. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | In view of G 2301/16, I would have expected a different result in G 3/19. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | How many people banked on the admissibility of G 3/19? | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The surprise was great when the decision introducing a “dynamic” interpretation of its own case law by the EBA was issued. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The conclusion of many people was that in G 3/19 the EBA did not resist the pressure of the office management. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | And this is not something to be pleased about. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | I also wonder how the FCC will see the situation created by the introduction of R 12a-d after all the events leading to the quasi dismissal of a member of the BA by the president of the office. The fact that reappointment is submitted to a performance review like in DG1 is certainly not conducive to increase their independence. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The FCC has also decided that judges can be appointed for a given period, but under quite strict conditions: they are employed for life and cannot be reappointed. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Not even the perception of the independence of the BA has been increased. In spite of what has been said, their independence is not existing as all the powers given to the president of the BA is by delegation of the president. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 8, 2021 AT 12:51 PM | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | G 2301/16 says the quiet part out loud, namely that the Boards are perfectly well aware that they risk provoking negative consequences (for them) by issuing decisions that contradict the strongly expressed wishes of the President / AC. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Given the awareness of the Boards on this point, how can one possibly have confidence that the decisions of the Boards of Appeal (or the Enlarged Board) in highly “political” cases are untainted by partiality? | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Since G 2301/16, the EBA’s decisions in controversial / “political” cases, such as G 2/19 and G 3/19, have used highly suspect (and, frankly, outright illogical) reasoning to arrive at conclusions that just so happen to give the President and the AC (almost) exactly what they might have wished for. In the light of this evidence, one might reasonably conclude that, given the circumstances under which its members operate, | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | objective observers will ALWAYS have an objectively justified fear of partiality in respect of EBA decisions in “political” cases. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The unfortunate crafting of the rules governing the organs of the EPO means that weaknesses with regard to the independence of the Boards have always been lurking in the background. Indeed, there was a push in the early 2000s to address those weaknesses. It is no small tragedy that the proposed reforms were abandoned … ironically, because of the perceived proximity of legislative changes necessary to usher in a new era of unitary | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | patents. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The latest developments in Germany illustrate that waiting for unitary patents is like waiting for Godot. Continuing to delay MEANINGFUL reform of the Boards can therefore no longer be justified, regardless of whether or not one believes that Godot will eventually arrive. The decisions in G 2301/16, G 2/19 and G 3/19 illustrate that the situation is already desperate. It is hard to imagine how just bad it might get if the FCC were | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | to give the EPO President and the AC a “free pass” to carry on in the same vein. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 8, 2021 AT 2:35 PM | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Things might even get worse with G 4/19… | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Since I am not German, could someone please explain how the EPO falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC? Thank you! | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 9:45 AM | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | A further referral in which the independence of the EBA will be tested is G 1/21, when it will actually have been filed by Board 3.5.02. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | I would not be surprised if in the meantime this board has come under high pressure by the management of the boards and of the office. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The issues raised are of high political relevance, as the whole mandatory character of OP in form of ViCo could be set aside. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 10:17 AM | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Just seen on LinkedIn published by Preston RICHARD | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The Opponent has withdrawn their request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeals on the validity of Oral Proceeding by Video Conference. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5YSDU5C0178DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Bad news. | Mar 12 08:23 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-register.epo.org | European Patent Register | Mar 12 08:23 | |
| schestowitz | But epi took position on the topic | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=E5YD2NJP6561DSU&number=EP04758381&lng=en&npl=false | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | The question of the legality of mandatory OP in form of ViCo is however still actual! | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 12:05 PM | Mar 12 08:23 |
| schestowitz | Interesting. However, it is unclear whether the request(s) for in-person proceedings have been withdrawn … and so an opinion from the EBA may still be required to resolve the case. We shall have to wait and see. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 3:09 PM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | In any case, the request was filed after closure of the debate. Unless the board decides to reopen, there will be a referral. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | It seems that the proprietor had the same request, so that in absence of withdrawal of the proprietor’s request, the referral should be on its way. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Anonymous | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 4:09 PM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Have the two complaints been declared admissible by the FCC? | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 6:10 PM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Sorry to insist, but soon the comments will be closed: | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Since I am not German, could someone please explain how the EPO falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC? Thank you! | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Anon Y. Mouse | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 7:27 PM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | In my understanding, it is not the EPO as such which falls under the jurisdiction of the court, but rather Germany’s position as a contracting state to the EPC. If the institutional structures of the EPOrg are not in line with the standards of the German constitution, then Germany cannot participate in a constitutionally valid way. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | [Disclaimer: I am not German either] | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Patent Human | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 9, 2021 AT 8:47 PM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | The EPO does not fall under the jurisdiction of the BVG. However, Germany’s accession to the EPC does fall under its jurisdiction. Would the BVG consider that the membership of Germany violates the German Constitution, it could oblige Germany to amend the treaty or step out of it. Germany being the biggest European filer and by far the biggest “Umsatzmarkt”, that would be a huge blow to the EPO and would certainly require a | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Diplomatic Conference and amendment of the EPC. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 10, 2021 AT 10:20 AM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Thank you for your comments. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | So if there were issues with the FCC decision(s), the only solution would be Art. 172 EPC, wouldn’t it? | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | However, what about the decisions taken by the BoA since 1979? | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Anon Y. Mouse | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | MARCH 10, 2021 AT 11:48 AM | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | My [non-expert] view is that the BoA decisions would surely stand (they were taken under the provisions of the EPC, not under German law). | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | However, perhaps someone can tell us whether any parties adversely affected by such decisions could claim damages against the German government. For example, if a patent-holder’s rights in Germany were destroyed by revocation of a patent at the EPO, does non-compliance of the EPC (and therefore the revocation procedure at the EPO) with the German Basic Law mean that the revocation of the German part of the patent is | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | unconstitutional? And so that the patentee has a claim for damages against the German government arising from the unconstitutional removal of their rights? | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Of course, such rights in the (German part of the European) patent would also not have existed in Germany in the first place without Germany being party to that same illegal convention… can this be disentangled? | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | Another blogpost is surely needed to explore these matters. | Mar 12 08:24 |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/03/05/german-upca-ratification-now-we-have-the-salad/ | Mar 12 08:24 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | German UPCA Ratification - Now We Have The Salad - Kluwer Patent Blog | Mar 12 08:24 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 08:57 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 08:57 | |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-110321.html#tMar%2011%2008:42:48 | Mar 12 09:21 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Thursday, March 11, 2021 | Mar 12 09:21 | |
| schestowitz | # +1 | Mar 12 09:21 |
| schestowitz | # far fewer resources would be a required by a static site generator | Mar 12 09:21 |
| schestowitz | quite so far today in IRC, which is how I prefer it | Mar 12 12:54 |
| schestowitz | *quiet | Mar 12 12:54 |
| Techrights-sec | On Jekyll (or other static site generator) instead of WordPress, | Mar 12 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | TR could probably be run from a geographically distributed cluster | Mar 12 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | of SBCs | Mar 12 12:55 |
| Techrights-sec | Quiet is good. | Mar 12 12:55 |
| schestowitz | a lot more productive today, also at work (shift) | Mar 12 12:56 |
| Techrights-sec | don't skimp on the exercise though | Mar 12 12:57 |
| schestowitz | did a workout 2 hours ago. I need to compensate for sleep deficit, but weekend is coming,... | Mar 12 12:58 |
| Techrights-sec | excellent | Mar 12 12:59 |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Mar 12 16:28 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Mar 12 16:41 | |
| Techrights-sec | just did a backup | Mar 12 18:09 |
| schestowitz | I did the DBs yesterday (offsite), but it's quiet today so I hope it's just a temperamental issue (health condition) | Mar 12 18:09 |
| Techrights-sec | Hopefully it will improve soon. Usually that is a muscle issue. | Mar 12 18:25 |
| schestowitz | I think I was misunderstood. Not about me.. | Mar 12 18:25 |
| Techrights-sec | Muscles are in pairs and if one pair gets stronger then there is trouble. | Mar 12 18:26 |
| Techrights-sec | Oh. I'm not sure of the context then. | Mar 12 18:26 |
| schestowitz | emotional imbalance, clinical | Mar 12 18:26 |
| Techrights-sec | I guess I'll see in tomorrow's IRC. | Mar 12 18:27 |
| Techrights-sec | Ah. That's been known for ages but is hard to talk about the last few decades. | Mar 12 18:27 |
| schestowitz | COVID is worsening things, esp. for extroverts | Mar 12 18:27 |
| schestowitz | ' | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Challenging the salary adjustment procedure 2020: Request for review -> DEADLINE 16 MARCH | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Dear colleagues, | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | During the General Assemblies and Floor Meetings end of 2020, the staff representation informed you that the trade union SUEPO would prepare litigation against the salary adjustment procedure of 2020 which caused a loss of purchasing power for all EPO active staff and pensioners. | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | SUEPO has now provided its members with a template and instructions, and has also decided to make them available to the staff committees for distribution to all staff. | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | In order to safeguard your rights, you need to file a request for review (RfR) before 16 March 2021 as follows: | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | Fill in the first page and the last page of the RfR Word Template with your personal data and your signature, | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Convert the filled in RfR to a PDF, | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Retrieve your salary slip of January 2021 from MyFips (MyFips -> Salaries and Allowances -> Salary slip) or your pension statement of January 2021 | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Send your filled in RfR PDF together with your salary slip or pension statement by email (with request for acknowledgment of receipt) to managementreview@epo.org and copy to sap2020@suepo.org | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | Please keep a copy of the email you sent and of the PDFs in your paper archives and electronic archives. These documents will be necessary later for filing an internal appeal and for filing a complaint in front of ILOAT. | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:49 | |
| schestowitz | A decision from the President is then due two months after filing the request for review. In case of a rejection decision, you will then have three months to file an internal appeal. For this next stage of the procedure, SUEPO has already informed us that SUEPO will provide further legal support to its members only. | Mar 12 18:49 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:50 | |
| schestowitz | Sincerely yours, | Mar 12 18:50 |
| schestowitz | Mar 12 18:50 | |
| schestowitz | The Central Staff Committee | Mar 12 18:50 |
| schestowitz | " | Mar 12 18:50 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.