Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Wednesday, May 26, 2021

(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.

*buzzert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)May 26 05:12
*buzzert ( has joined #boycottnovellMay 26 05:14
schestowitztwo more days before the hearings start 'online'... any articles about patents for the novice reader before, during or shortly after that can get more people online 'involved'; EPO does NOT want people to watch this because the more people know, the more angry they become,.May 26 10:08
schestowitz 26 10:28
-TechrightsBN/ | G 1/21 - We have a new Chairman - Kluwer Patent BlogMay 26 10:28
schestowitz"May 26 10:28
schestowitzDoes an order made by the replaced chairman to hold oral proceedings as a video conference cease to have effect upon such replacement?May 26 10:28
schestowitzConcerned observerMay 26 10:28
schestowitzMAY 20, 2021 AT 7:29 PMMay 26 10:28
schestowitzThis really ought to be the case for all of the previous Chairman’s decisions, not just the decision regarding the mode of oral proceedings. An individual who has been excluded on the grounds of a justified suspicion of partiality really ought to have no influence whatsoever on the proceedings. However, the previous Chairman has determined the composition of the (rest of) the EBA, the date of oral proceedings and the mode of oral May 26 10:28
schestowitzproceedings. All of those decisions could prove to be highly influential with regard to the outcome of the proceedings (eg with the extremely short deadline for filing amicus briefs potentially having the effect of significantly reducing the number of briefs filed, as well as the amount of time and effort that could be dedicated to gathering supporting evidence, or otherwise making the arguments in the briefs as persuasive as May 26 10:28
schestowitzpossible).May 26 10:28
schestowitzIn conclusion, it seems to me that, strictly speaking, the slate should be wiped clean and the whole process started again … with the first step being the selection of a new composition of the EBA by the new Chairman. However, I can see nothing in the interlocutory decision that indicates that the EBA is considering rescinding any of the decisions taken by the previous Chairman.May 26 10:28
schestowitzConcerned observerMay 26 10:28
schestowitzMAY 20, 2021 AT 7:18 PMMay 26 10:28
schestowitzNot quite quick enough to make the EPO President pause for thought before extending (to 31 Jan 2022) the “pilot program” for VICOs in opposition.May 26 10:28
schestowitz 26 10:28
-TechrightsBN/ | EPO - Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 14 May 2021 concerning the further extension of the pilot project for oral proceedings by videoconference before opposition divisionsMay 26 10:28
schestowitzThe EBA’s confirmation that water is wet (ie that the Chairman should be excluded on the grounds of suspected partiality) raises an important question about why the Chairman did not recuse himself from the entire proceedings. Did he really think that he might be able to continue? Sadly, I think that we can conclude that he probably did think this. This is because he appears to have made last-minute, token efforts towards an May 26 10:28
schestowitzappearance of impartiality, namely he:May 26 10:28
schestowitz“refrained from presenting CA/5/21 or discussing the proposed amendment of the RPBA during the meeting of the Administrative Council on 23 March 2021 where the proposal for Article 15a was discussed”; andMay 26 10:28
schestowitz“did not make any comments, be it internally or publicly, on the referral G 1/21”.May 26 10:28
schestowitzThis suggests to me either a lack of understanding of the legal principles underpinning the independence of the judiciary or, more likely, a desire to continue as Chair of the EBA despite the obvious problems of partiality (ie where he would be effectively deciding whether his own actions were in accordance with the EPC). Either way, this is not a good look for the President of the Boards of Appeal.May 26 10:28
schestowitzDo not pull my leg!May 26 10:28
schestowitzMAY 20, 2021 AT 7:39 PMMay 26 10:28
schestowitzThe pressure had really become too great, but the job was only half done. Given the overwhelming evidence it was difficult for Mr J. to be retained. That Mr B was exchanged was as necessary as exchanging Mr J.May 26 10:28
schestowitzTo claim that the two members of the Presidium, Mrs R and Mr E, were only consulted and therefore cannot be suspected of bias is a mockery.May 26 10:28
schestowitzIt also remains that the sword of Damocles of non-reappointment as a member of the BA is a good instrument helping to flex some spines that should not be underestimated.May 26 10:28
schestowitzI hope that the members of this EBA will have the courage to resist the pressure as those who dared resist the previous EPO President when he trampled on the separation of powers.May 26 10:28
schestowitzWe must not forget that the issue to be discussed goes far beyond the BA.May 26 10:29
schestowitzIt is the whole New Normal that Napoleon’s 4th worthy successor wants to establish that is at stake.May 26 10:29
schestowitzAttentive ObserverMay 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 21, 2021 AT 3:58 AMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzI cannot but agree with Concerned Observer about the behaviour of the president of the BA in this whole affair. It is tragic to see a person having been a judge himself to behave as he did. Whatever the outcome of G1/21 will be, his authority will have been severely damaged.May 26 10:29
schestowitzHe should resign should he have some self respect. But would the BA would be better managed should Mr.B take over?May 26 10:29
schestowitzEven the perception of independence of the BA has been shattered by now! A real independence has never existed.May 26 10:29
schestowitzLet’s hope that not only G 3/19 but also G 1/21 will be brought to the attention of the German Federal Constitutional Court when it will take a decision on the independence of the BA.May 26 10:29
schestowitzThe Convention watchdogMay 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 21, 2021 AT 9:21 AMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzA straightforward decision which gives convincing reasons for a result unavoidable under established principles of the rule of law. However, it cannot do away with what has happened outside the referral proceedings. All those who are involved in the reappointment of the internal members of the EBA have made very clear what they expect the EBA to decide: the President of the Boards of Appeal, the President of the EPO, and not the May 26 10:29
schestowitzleast the Administrative Council by approving and thereby enacting Article 15a RPBA, notwithstanding the pending referral instead of waiting for the outcome of the referral and respecting the authority of the EBA. Another call for a for dynamic interpretation of the EPC?May 26 10:29
schestowitzConcerned observerMay 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 21, 2021 AT 11:57 AMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzAnother curious aspect of the interlocutory decision is the discussion of the objections against X and Y (Eliasson and Ritzka).May 26 10:29
schestowitzWhen faced with objections to his participation, Z (Beckedorf) voluntarily disclosed to the EBA information that had not previously been disclosed to the public (or at least not officially confirmed). That is, he disclosed his role “in the drafting of a proposal for a provision that later became Article 15a RPBA” and “in presenting drafts for the proposal during discussions in the Presidium and with user representatives duringMay 26 10:29
schestowitzthe consultation phase”. This was the correct thing to do, and led to the EBA excluding him from the proceedings.May 26 10:29
schestowitzHowever, it seems that X and Y were perhaps not so forthcoming about their involvement “in presenting drafts for the proposal during discussions … with user representatives during the consultation phase” (see Flopsy the bunny’s comments at 26 10:29
-TechrightsBN/ | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKatMay 26 10:29
schestowitzIt also seems that X and Y were remarkably tight-lipped about the advice that, as members of the Presidium, they provided to the President of the Boards of Appeal in connection with proposed Article 15a RPBA.May 26 10:29
schestowitzIt is difficult to imagine that the information seemingly not disclosed by X and Y would have been irrelevant to the EBA’s consideration of the objections to those members. Indeed, participation in discussions with user representatives was one of the grounds mentioned by the EBA in connection with the exclusion of Z. Further, if, in fact, the Presidium (including X and Y) supported the proposal to introduce Article 15a RPBA, wouldMay 26 10:29
schestowitzthat not have been highly relevant to the question of whether they should be excluded? Indeed, would it not also be highly relevant if the Presidium did NOT support the proposal? As it is, it seems that X and Y have not been excluded simply on the grounds that information pertaining to possible grounds to suspect partiality has not been made public.May 26 10:29
schestowitzWhilst it is perhaps possible that X and Y have indeed maintained a sufficiently impartial stance throughout this whole saga, it seems that the public will never know for sure whether this is indeed the case. It almost goes without saying that this is not an ideal outcome with regard to inspiring public confidence in the impartiality of the EBA.May 26 10:29
schestowitzLegitimusMay 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 21, 2021 AT 3:45 PMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzIt would be nice to know how the individual members of the EBA in charge of this referral have been selected. One should assume that in the recent weeks and months the point at issue has been amply discussed internally of the Boards of Appeal, so that most members personal opinion might have been well known. Is there any mechanism in place to avoid any purposive selection of the members appointed in a case and if so, is it possible May 26 10:29
schestowitzfor outsiders to check whether it has been properly applied here?May 26 10:29
schestowitzStraightforward decisions.May 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 23, 2021 AT 10:37 AMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzHand selected by the VP3/PresofBoA.May 26 10:29
schestowitzNo.May 26 10:29
schestowitzNo.May 26 10:29
schestowitzMaxDreiMay 26 10:29
schestowitzMAY 22, 2021 AT 11:43 AMMay 26 10:29
schestowitzI’m not an attorney at law, just a mere patent attorney, and therefore I am not 100% clear on whether the issue of “partiality” is coterminous with the age-old and hallowed principle of nemo iudex (nobody should be judge in their own cause) which Thorsten recently so helpfully wrote to us about here:May 26 10:29
schestowitz 26 10:29
-TechrightsBN/ | A Few More Thoughts on Normality - Kluwer Patent BlogMay 26 10:29
schestowitzI found no mention of this principle anywhere in the wording of G1/21 of 17 May 2021. Might that be because it is too delicate to go anywhere near? Is “partiality” a convenient carpet under which to sweep the elephant currently stomping around the room?May 26 10:29
schestowitz"May 26 10:29
schestowitz[01:07] <xxxxxxx> (23:50:49) thumbs: also, you should read up on two new appointed staffers: Eskimo and Bagira/PhanesMay 26 11:08
schestowitz[01:07] <xxxxxxx> (00:05:04) thumbs: XRevan86: 26 11:08
-TechrightsBN/ | Vae Victis! – Phanes' CanonMay 26 11:08
schestowitz[01:07] <xxxxxxx> (00:05:39) thumbs: that is phanes, and he ran a slandering campaigns for years, and threatened 5 of us personally, and doxed usMay 26 11:08
schestowitz[01:07] <xxxxxxx> (00:05:53) thumbs: even issued death threatsMay 26 11:08
schestowitz[01:16] <xxxxxxx> (00:14:15) thumbs: Chris Punches accused John of using child pornography, out of retaliationMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[01:16] <xxxxxxx> (00:14:23) thumbs: collecting, whateverMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[01:16] <xxxxxxx> (00:15:12) thumbs: and this is the kind of staffer Andrew appointsMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[01:16] <xxxxxxx> (00:16:35) thumbs: Eskimo wrote an irc client, iglooirc, which logged private messages and images shared, some with nudity, and publicly posted themMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> Eh.. forget the email, you did not get these from me:May 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> Hired "Phanes" that performed "ritual defamation" on former freenode staff.May 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> May 26 11:09
-TechrightsBN/ | It is ritual defamation [1]. This has been apparently going on for quite some t... | Hacker NewsMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> ...May 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> Also hired "eskimo" with questionable previous behaviour. May 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:53] <xxxxxxx> 26 11:09
-TechrightsBN/ | Looking to sell my client to a new maintainer. : ircMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:54] <xxxxxxx> , /whois Phanes , /whois eskimoMay 26 11:09
schestowitz[20:55] <xxxxxxx> .. /whois bagira[llf] .. not phanesMay 26 11:09
Techrights-sec2This is as far as I have gotten so far before getting stuck:May 26 13:33
Techrights-sec2PO-overview-2021-05.txtMay 26 13:33
schestowitzlots of people read up epo wiki+articles this weekMay 26 13:34
Techrights-sec2One crucial problem is that it looks like there is no oversight on the EPOMay 26 13:40
Techrights-sec2and that there is no EU institution which is assigned the role of managingMay 26 13:40
Techrights-sec2and monitoring the EPO.May 26 13:40
Techrights-sec2The wiki is probably the mostusable way of navigating TR articles.May 26 13:40
schestowitzfor many purposes the wiki is not good, except maybe for stuff looking for the latest updates. The intro there is insufficient and targets not geeks.May 26 13:40
Techrights-sec2*staffMay 26 13:41
Techrights-sec2spam: 26 13:44
Techrights-sec2It looks like the mainstream media is trying to burn up their "quota"May 26 13:44
Techrights-sec2of patent- and tech-related news on propaganda and fluff so thatMay 26 13:44
Techrights-sec2there will be no space left to cover the important issues.May 26 13:44
-TechrightsBN/ | Waiving Covid-19 vaccine patents won't get shots in arms faster. It slows down new vaccines.May 26 13:44
schestowitzYes, I saw the same thing more of less one hour ago... in WSJ when looking for EPO newsMay 26 13:44
Techrights-sec2There is also this one, which might segue to EPO in the comments,May 26 14:16
Techrights-sec2 26 14:16
-TechrightsBN/ | Locking USPTO Patent Filings into Microsoft with DOCX - SoylentNewsMay 26 14:16
schestowitzI have just added this in full to 26 14:21
-TechrightsBN/ | USPTO Promotes Microsoft Monopoly and Proprietary Software (Updated) | TechrightsMay 26 14:21
schestowitz 26 16:48
-TechrightsBN/ | Microsoft teases a ‘next generation of Windows’ announcement ‘very soon’ - The VergeMay 26 16:48
*schestowitz__ (~schestowi@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:9e47:addf:5b42:cd6d) has joined #boycottnovellMay 26 18:25
*schestowitz__ has quit (Changing host)May 26 18:25
*schestowitz__ (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovellMay 26 18:25
*ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz__May 26 18:25
*schestowitz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)May 26 18:29
*schestowitz__ is now known as schestowitzMay 26 18:39
*saint_dogbert (~phobos@unaffiliated/phobos-anomaly/x-6744724) has joined #boycottnovellMay 26 19:16
Techrights-sec2 26 19:17
-TechrightsBN/ | Beautyon (@Beautyon_): "Property rights give everyone absolute certainty. Without them, there is confusion, pointless destructive disputes and rancour and other nonsense. People making up rules as they go along is a recipe for disaster. History matters and people should learn it." | nitterMay 26 19:17
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)May 26 21:55
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovellMay 26 21:55

Generated by 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.