Join us now at the IRC channel.
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jun 03 03:42 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 03:42 | |
| schestowitz | Re: MEDIA INQUIRY Gates Foundation | Jun 03 05:57 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | > Hello, | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > I don't know if you remember, but I interviewed you for an article I was | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > doing about the Gates Foundation a few years ago for The Verge. Believe | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > it or not, the story was killed, and I lost my job — shortly thereafter, | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > it was announced that Bill Gates would be the site's "guest editor" for | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | > the month of February, 2015. But I'm sure that's all a coincidence... | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | A month or so after I did an important series about Gates (Sept. 2019) onwards Gates started paying my boss at work, even though we compete against Microsoft. But I'm sure that's all a coincidence... | Jun 03 05:57 |
| schestowitz | Re: Bison status | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > This has already been checked and re-checked, but it's worth looking into again-- it will be looked into again. | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > May 2018 | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > Re: Bison 3.0.5 | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > From: Paul EggertSubject: Re: Bison 3.0.5Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:56:06 -0700User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101Thunderbird/52.7.0 | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > On 05/22/2018 12:31 PM, Ricky Zhang wrote: | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | >> In any case, if you want to attract more traffic for testing or get PRsfrom others, I still recommend we should move to Github. | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > That's not our decision, and it's FSF policy not to use GitHub because GitHub doesn't provide the sorts of freedom to its users that the FSF insists upon. If you'd like to change the FSF policy, please take it up with the Chief GNUsiance, or with GitHub, or both; it's above our pay grade. | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | >> I still need to verify you are who you are | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > Bison releases are routinely signed with a .sig file; that should be good enough for even the most-paranoid user. | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > No, Bison is the reverse mirror (The GNU repo is a mirror of GH) so there's no progress here. | Jun 03 06:48 |
| schestowitz | > Even I, who keeps relatively informed, did not know about this... | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > I generally credit you as knowing more about what's going on than I do-- particularly when we disagree on something. The "but Roy sometimes knows more about what's going on behind the scenes" bit is quite sincere and not tongue in cheek. I won't deny that it's satisfying to get ahead of you on something for even a moment, though I know it will be fleeting. I do think a collective working on something has (should have) more potential | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | than an individual. | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > I tend to focus on corporate and "community" (the quotes are often needed, as you point out) and philosophy-- you feel free to cover the other angles I generally don't. By this I mean we both write whatever we write, but I don't cover every angle. Some angles, if you want covered, you'll have to do those. | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/trechnex/status/1267688069114757121 | Jun 03 06:50 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@trechnex: To say that the initiative to bring GNU into collective governance is "divisive" would be a hell of an understateme… https://t.co/0KdOFZbBEb | Jun 03 06:50 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@trechnex: To say that the initiative to bring GNU into collective governance is "divisive" would be a hell of an understateme… https://t.co/0KdOFZbBEb | Jun 03 06:50 | |
| schestowitz | Re: Reuse | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > #reuse #software https://reuse.software/faq/ "We want to improve the way that people license their software projects." | Jun 03 06:50 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-reuse.software | Frequently Asked Questions | REUSE | Jun 03 06:50 | |
| schestowitz | > Right, I'm unlikely to take licensing advice from people who think Github is a good place to host. | Jun 03 06:50 |
| schestowitz | > Professionalism n. | Jun 03 06:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:51 |
| schestowitz | > 1. A dick-sucking contest to see who can take the CEO the farthest back. | Jun 03 06:51 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:51 |
| schestowitz | > 2. A cynical ruse that invariably favors large corporations in any field of endeavor. | Jun 03 06:51 |
| schestowitz | http://techrights.org/2019/08/15/professionalism-myth/ | Jun 03 06:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | The Myth of ‘Professionalism’ | Techrights | Jun 03 06:51 | |
| schestowitz | > Oh no, nothing of that sort. Don't get me wrong also, I do get maybe | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | > 20MB's it's not enough to do the work, but I was thinking, maybe I could | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | > write then you post on my behalf, then again I thought I'm more | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | > interested in the Tech! | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | > I'll be back soon. | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | If you prefer, we can do it like that. | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | Sent me the curated link, using the format I sent you, then I'd publish under your name/account. At a later stage you can do so directly :-) | Jun 03 06:53 |
| schestowitz | "should be now available" | Jun 03 06:54 |
| schestowitz | https://placeholderapi.wordpress.com/2020/06/01/new-builds-of-fedora-32-are-not-available-https-jbwillia-wordpre/#comment-16619 | Jun 03 06:54 |
| schestowitz | cheers | Jun 03 06:54 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-placeholderapi.wordpress.com | New builds of #fedora 32 are not available https://jbwillia.wordpre… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊) | Jun 03 06:54 | |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18272229#50c800d087630138b0de047d7b62795e | Jun 03 06:58 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: Firefox 77 Released with Minor Changes (So Don’t Get Excited) http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138317#comment-25310 | Jun 03 06:58 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | Mozilla Firefox 77 Is Now Available for Download, Here’s What’s New | Tux Machines | Jun 03 06:58 | |
| schestowitz | "right, excited about crap spyware from mozilla." | Jun 03 06:58 |
| schestowitz | So get Tor browser - Tor Browser download page | Jun 03 06:58 |
| schestowitz | https://www.torproject.org/download/ | Jun 03 06:59 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.torproject.org | Tor Project | Download | Jun 03 06:59 | |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18269851#64c8b100875c0138420508002785b8a8 | Jun 03 06:59 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: Linux Marketshare Increased Again Last Month http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138311 | Jun 03 06:59 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | Linux Marketshare Increased Again Last Month | Tux Machines | Jun 03 06:59 | |
| schestowitz | "theres no such thing as linux marketshare anymore. linux marketshare only has meaning when its in competition with apple and microsoft. when its being coopted and exploited by microsoft, the meaning of it as a metric goes right out the window." | Jun 03 06:59 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18272239#7dcc0a9087550138420508002785b8a8 | Jun 03 06:59 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: Lenovo Announces Plan to Sell Ubuntu on Even More ThinkPads http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138313#comment-25311 | Jun 03 06:59 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | Lenovo brings Linux to its P-series ThinkPads and ThinkStations | Tux Machines | Jun 03 06:59 | |
| schestowitz | "ubuntu: the other microsoft operating system." | Jun 03 06:59 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18267835#0a6cd53087020138420508002785b8a8 | Jun 03 07:00 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: Mozilla Firefox 78 Enters Beta with Updated Minimal Linux System Requirements http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138306 | Jun 03 07:00 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | Mozilla Firefox 78 Enters Beta with Updated Minimal Linux System Requirements | Tux Machines | Jun 03 07:00 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | Other noteworthy changes included in the upcoming Firefox 78 release are the ability to open downloaded PDF files directly in the web browser via a new option. | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | youve been able to open downloaded pdfs in the browser for ages, by “directly” they just mean “it will be very slightly easier to get to the file” | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/18266674#c3bf0bd086ed0138420708002785b8a8 | Jun 03 07:00 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: MX Linux 19.2 Released: A Midweight Debian And antiX OS Spinoff http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/138301 | Jun 03 07:00 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | MX Linux 19.2 Released: A Midweight Debian And antiX OS Spinoff | Tux Machines | Jun 03 07:00 | |
| schestowitz | "they need to #deletegithub" | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | yes, indeed... | Jun 03 07:00 |
| schestowitz | > The murder by the police officer was horrible and he deserves life or | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > worse, but have you also seen the footage of the looting and brutal | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > racist attacks during the riots, it's absolutely disgusting, vile | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > people. There are reports they are being encouraged by the hard left | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > (and their twitter enablers), abhorrent behaviour. | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > Innocent people beaten near to death for protecting their property, an | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > elderly couple beaten unconscious, an elderly lady in a wheelchair | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > attacked and robbed, a lovely Korean couples life's business destroyed, | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > innocent policeman with family shot in the back of the head, so cowardly | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > and beyond evil, how can anyone side with this? | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > It all ends in bodies. | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > Video shows woman attacked outside Rochester business | Jun 03 07:02 |
| schestowitz | > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEUmmYDUfA> | Jun 03 07:02 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.youtube.com | Video shows woman attacked outside Rochester business - YouTube | Jun 03 07:02 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/HeidiJaster/status/1267884617203363846 | Jun 03 07:26 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@HeidiJaster: @schestowitz @charlamanesbane They already do this with our phones for traffic maps. Red roads = phones are not mo… https://t.co/P5f8tlVkqF | Jun 03 07:26 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@HeidiJaster: @schestowitz @charlamanesbane They already do this with our phones for traffic maps. Red roads = phones are not mo… https://t.co/P5f8tlVkqF | Jun 03 07:26 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 07:26 |
| schestowitz | They already do this with our phones for traffic maps. | Jun 03 07:26 |
| schestowitz | Red roads = phones are not moving | Jun 03 07:26 |
| schestowitz | Green roads = phones are moving | Jun 03 07:26 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 07:26 |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jun 03 07:32 | |
| *libertybox has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat) | Jun 03 07:32 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowi@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 07:50 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 07:51 | |
| *schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jun 03 08:16 | |
| *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 08:16 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/chaz_6/status/1267857336107925504 | Jun 03 09:33 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@chaz_6: @schestowitz Fancy that, a company giving consumers the power to use the products they buy with fewer restrictions | Jun 03 09:33 | |
| schestowitz | Anon: "They know who both of us are and the relationship we have. If you publish a story about xxxxx at a xxxxxx in the xxxx, they | Jun 03 09:33 |
| schestowitz | know who did it. I doubt you correspond with anyone else that is both employed in a xxxxxx xxxxxxxx that has suffered a xxxxxxx attack and is free software-aware. If you do correspond regularly with such a person, the story will land on both of our bosses' desks and both of us will be fired. No matter how I try, my language and the facts will give me away if my story is put on my xxxxxxxx or my boss's desk. The other person will | Jun 03 09:33 |
| schestowitz | have problems too." | Jun 03 09:33 |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Jun 03 09:55 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 09:55 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Jun 03 12:15 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 12:15 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/02/upca-should-be-abandoned-and-substantive-reform-at-eu-level-taken-up/?doing_wp_cron=1591201773.5566821098327636718750 | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Jan Van Hoey | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 3, 2020 AT 9:50 AM | Jun 03 17:30 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | 'UPCA should be abandoned and substantive reform at EU level taken up' - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 03 17:30 | |
| schestowitz | “We may ask authoritative legal experts to look into the matter.” | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Back in 2007, the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament (JURI) requested an opinion of the Legal Service of the Parliament about the ratification of the EPLA, which would have made an international agreement with Switzerland or Turkey. The EPLA was rules contrary to AETR (22/70), we are in the same situation with UK as a third country here. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 3, 2020 AT 12:03 PM | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Although I cannot agree with the position of Mr Patrick Breyer in respect of computer programs, there is a lot to be agreed with. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Let’s just say that when the European Parliament took its decision about software which should not be patentable, it did so under the intense lobbying of the proponents of free software. Now we have an intense lobbying in favour of the UPC. Tables seem turning! The former lobbyist are now fighting new lobbyists. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | I consider however that the case law of the BA of the EPO has found a proper balance between the non-patentability of software as such and its patentability when it has a function which goes beyond the normal working of a computer. For instance, it does not matter whether a rolling mill is controlled by means of a computer connected to sensors and actuators or by a series of classical electronic circuits. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | The situation is slightly different when everything is happening in the computer itself, but as said, there are also situations there when a patent could be granted. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | I would therefore not consider that the UPC is a threat as such and would open the floods as only patents granted by the EPO can be reviewed by it. If the EPO has refused an application this decision cannot be reviewed by the UPC. Only post-grant infringement and validity can be decided (after the opposition period) by the UPC. The situation is thus by no means as bad as Mr Breyer makes out. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | That the UPC is a threat for European Industry is however a matter of fact. EP applications from EU member states represent according to the latest figures published by the EP 35,1% of all applications filed. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | When we take all EPO member states it comes to 45%. 72% of the applications stemming from Europe are filed by large enterprises and the rest by SMEs (18%) and the like (10%). In the end only 10% of the applications are filed by SMEs and the like having their seat or place of business in Europe. This figures valid in 2019 are not really different in the previous years. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | It means thus that 65% of all applications stem from non-EU member states. I fail to understand how this proportion can be favourable to European industry in general and European SMEs in particular, having their seat in the EU! It is thus not a surprise that countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are not in favour of the EPC. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | A recent research paper from Dimitris Xenos, “The Impact of the European Patent system on SMEs and National States and the Advent of Unitary Patent”, published in Prometheus, Vol. 36, No. 1 (March 2020), pp. 51-68, comes to the conclusion that “objective evidence shows that the new legal/institutional developments amplify existing imbalances in technological and economic capacities that are already observed between and within | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | member states, and between them and non-EU states in the current global conditions of technological competition”. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | The figures used in the study, albeit older, are comparable to the actual figures, so that the conclusions in the paper are also valid today and confirm what I have stated above. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | One of the conclusions of the paper is that “the democratic control of industrial property in national markets is an essential responsibility of the state. Yet, the state is being stripped of democratic control by the EU’s new, pseudo-federal patent system”. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | A further one is “Objective evidence has emerged, albeit ex post, showing that the position of SMEs is very weak under the EPO system as their share of annual European patents granted is less than 10% and 17% in patent applications. These statistical results contradict the official justifications of the UPP, which focus on benefits for SMEs”. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | The UPC opens a boulevard for litigation from non-EU member states and is primarily for the benefit of large industry, for instance represented by Business Europe. Has this ever been explained to all the Parliaments having ratified or intending to ratify the UPC? | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | That Mr Breton wants to push the UPC is not a surprise. It is a good friend and a political buddy of the former president of the EPO. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | To be very blunt, the UPC is pushed by the “Big” industry and lawyers who hope to fill their pockets when litigating before the UPC. Both represent a very active lobby which is more interested in its own profits as in the well-being of European industry in general and European SMES in particular. The lawyer’s fees are not on the low side when it comes to litigate before a national court, but imagine what it could be, when | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | litigation is before a supra-national jurisdiction! | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | In a second comment I will approach the problem caused by the non-participation of the UK in the UPC and the legal consequences it might have. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Techrights and zoobab: FINGERS OFF!!! | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | MaxDrei | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 3, 2020 AT 1:18 PM | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | A word here, in support of the notion that the EPO is competent to set the limits of patentability, particularly in the field of “software inventions”. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | GATT-TRIPS sets the limits of patentability as “all fields of technology”. The EPO interprets this as inventions manifested as a combination of technical features that solves a problem in the technological arts, in a way that isn’t obvious. The only inventive activity that “counts” for patentability is inventiveness in technology. This approach from the EPO squeezes out cleverness in fields other than technology far more | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | efficiently than any other jurisdiction can do. What does anybody in their right mind find problematic with any of that? | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | It hardly need be aid that there are fine judgements to be made, at the limit of patentability. What is “technical” and what is not? But with the EPO approach (unlike in other jurisdictions) ad with every further hundred hard-fought and marginal inter Partes disputes over validity at the EPO, that boundary gets ever sharper, with every succeeding year of EPO Boards of Appeal case law. | Jun 03 17:30 |
| schestowitz | Anybody who values legal certainty and a correctly functioning patent system should cherish the EPO case law on the substantive law of patentability, and not let any new patent court interfere with it or over-rule it or replace it with something having a lower degree of hard-won, consistent, rigorous and steadily increasing legal certainty | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Interested Commentator | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 3, 2020 AT 5:05 PM | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | @ Jan Van Hoey: Here are the conclusions of the opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament about the ratification of the EPLA (1 February 2007): | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | “1) The purpose of the Agreement on the establishment of a European patent litigation system (“EPLA”) is to set up the European Patent Judiciary to settle litigation concerning the infringement and validity of European patents. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 2) Where common rules have been adopted, the Member States of the European Community no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with non-member countries which affect those rules. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 3) Directive 2004/48/EC harmonizes national legislation on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Not only would EPLA govern matters already dealt with by this Directive, but there are also contradictions between the two instruments on a number of matters. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 4) EPLA aims to lay down rules in certain areas governed by Regulation 44/2001 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements. Notwithstanding the specific provisions of EPLA governing its relations with that Regulation, the conclusion of EPLA would affect the uniform and consistent application of the Community rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | matters. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 5) Compliance with Article 98 of EPLA would prima facie constitute a breach of Article 292 EC Treaty. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 6) It follows that the Community’s competence is exclusive for the matters governed by EPLA and Member States therefore are not entitled on their own to conclude that Agreement.” | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Source: https://www.ipeg.com/_UPLOAD%20BLOG/Interim%20Legal%20Opinions%20Legal%20Service%20EP%20Feb%201%202007.pdf | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | REPLY | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | JUNE 3, 2020 AT 5:37 PM | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Here is my second comment: | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Whilst the EPC provides the possibility to leave it, cf. Art 174 EPC, no such provision is to be found in the UPCA. It is only foreseen that the UPCA can be revised under certain conditions, but nothing more, cf. Art 87 UPCA. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | The situation of the UK with respect to the UPC is thus quite interesting. It has one foot in the UPC and one foot out. It has one foot in, as it has ratified it, but it has one foot out, as HM government has declared that it will not participate in the UPC, as at the end of the line the CJEU can decide and the Brexit was just to avoid being subjected to the jurisdiction of the CJEU. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Having ratified, the UK is thus bound by its ratification and it is difficult to see how Germany could ratify the UPCA so that it can enter into force, with a member state refusing to accept the supremacy of Union Law as expressed in Art 20 UPCA. I cannot see a better catch 22 situation. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | The questions of Mr Breyer to the Commission are thus justified. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Let’s envisage a possible scenario. As there is no clause in the UPCA permitting the UK to leave the UPC, the only possibility is to look at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Art 25(2) VCLT could be possibly come into play. According to Art 25(2) VCLT “Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty”. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | For Art 25(2) VCLT to come into play, the treaty should at least be provisionally applied, which is not the case for the UPC. Provisional application of the UPC is submitted | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 1)to the ratification of at least FR, UK and DE as specified in Art 89(1) UPCA (….including the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents had effect in the year preceding the year in which the signature of the Agreement takes place). | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | 2)The entry in force of the protocol on the provisional application of the UPC, which also requires the FR, UK and DE to be signatory. UK has made a reservation on the application on Art 4 UPCA. DE has not yet signed the protocol, and might only do so after a new ratification. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | There are thus still some conditions to be fulfilled before the UPCA enter into force, be it provisionally or not. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | It seems thus that Art 25(2) VCLT is not directly applicable. It could be so, provided the UK would at least accept to file the notification foreseen in Art 25(2) VCLT, but this is not even sure. The question is however would it be in the interest of the UK to do so? | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Without filing the notice, and not clearly withdrawing from the UPCA, but at the same time declaring it does not want to participate, means that the UK could stall the whole UPC. Further than even stalling it, it could, in my humble opinion, even blow up the UPCA. It might be still member state, but by not accepting the jurisprudence of the CJEU, any decision taken by any local or regional court, or by the Central Division could not be | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | enforced as the UK would not any longer be bound by Brussels 1.The UPCA would become a paper tiger. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | This would allow the British legal profession to set up a litigation system which would come into competition with the UPC. This possibility has clearly been envisaged and is thus not merely theoretical. This is also one of the reasons why the proponents of the UPC want it to enter into force as quickly as possible, so as to block the way envisaged by the British profession. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | A big proponent of the UPC has written in a recent article – Tilmann: Zur Nichtigerklärung des EPGÜ-Ratifizierungsgesetzes, GRUR 2020, 441- that under the condition that the UK files the notification under Art 25(2) VCLT, the United Kingdom would therefore no longer be one of the three Contracting member states in which, at the time of signing the UPCA, most of the European patents were effective (Art. 89(1) UPCA), and Italy would | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | automatically takes over this role, cf. 2.a) in the article. . | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | This appears correct, but the proviso that the UK withdraws, and not merely not participate, has to be fulfilled. And nothing is more certain. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Mr Tilmann goes further and even claims that the status of the London Section of the Central Division does not have to be decided beforehand and the UPCA could be amended later in time, see Point 2,b) of the article. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | For Mr Tilmann the London Section would be de facto cancelled. This means that the Central Division in Paris would take over the duties foreseen for the London Section. He considers that it would be possible to wait until a further amendment of the UPCA and the corresponding ratification to decide where the former London Section would be transferred to, for example to Italy. The problem is that Mr Tilmann does not give any legal basis | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | to this daring conclusion. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | Needless to say that the French legal profession highly appreciates what it calls a gift from Brexit. It wanted to keep the matter silent, but this is not any longer the case now. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | I have rarely seen such a negation of the political situation. When one remembers the negotiations which ended up in splitting the Central Division in three part, it looks pretty naïve to claim, that all the member states will accept that Paris takes over two thirds of the Central Division, at least for a certain length of time. | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | There is still a further Damocles sword over the ratification of the UPCA by Germany: the absolute supremacy of Union Law, cf. Art 20 UPCA, which has been queried by the German Federal Constitutional Court in § 166 of its decision nullifying the first ratification by the German Parliament. To the displeasure of Mr Tilmann, the FGCC did not take any decision on this point as it had already found other reasons why the ratification was | Jun 03 17:31 |
| schestowitz | null and void. | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | For Mr Tilmann, should a conflict arise between primary Union law and national constitutional law, it could be resolved by the rules of the UPCA. According to Art. 82 (3) UPCA, the enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the Member State in which enforcement is to take place, unless the Treaty or the Statute provides otherwise. | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | Even if as claimed by Mr Tilmann this point is supported by the minority view in the GFCC, the fact that this point has been entered in the decision of the FGCC, although this point was not raised by the complainant, is certainly not innocent. | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | In general, I would take any conclusion of Mr Tilmann with a very large pinch of salt. When opinion C 1/09 was issued by the CJEU, he was of the opinion that the successor of the defunct EPLA, i.e. the UPCA, would only be opened to member states of the EU. Later, after Brexit, he was of the very opinion that the UK could stay in the UPCA after having left the EU. A late French politician said once: I am not a whether cock, it the wind | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | which is turning…. | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | Anything, even the slightest straw is good to push the UPCA forward so that it can enter into force as quickly as possible. The problem is that the more the whole UPCA is stalled, the more the problems it creates become apparent. The fait accompli wanted by the proponents of the UPC is not any longer possible, and it is good so. | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 17:32 |
| schestowitz | https://mobile.twitter.com/zoobab/status/1268090173889359872?p=p | Jun 03 17:34 |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 17:34 |
| schestowitz | 9h | Jun 03 17:34 |
| schestowitz | Greens voted against the Unitary Patent at EU level, but voted for it at the German level, so much for a pan-european party "This will likely depend on the German Greens. In the past they have [...] voted in favour." patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/02/upc… | Jun 03 17:34 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-mobile.twitter.com | Twitter | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| schestowitz | " | Jun 03 17:35 |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/zoobab/status/1268088526442303488 | Jun 03 17:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "The Unitary Patent is another attempt to validate and expand software patents in Europe. Software development is a… https://t.co/4jh5AGPe7Q | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@zoobab: "The Unitary Patent is another attempt to validate and expand software patents in Europe. Software development is a… https://t.co/4jh5AGPe7Q | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| schestowitz | ""The Unitary Patent is another attempt to validate and expand software patents in Europe. Software development is a key sector on which whole industries depend. The agreement would reserve to the CJEU only a say in a few limited technical matters." http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/02/upca-should-be-abandoned-and-substantive-reform-at-eu-level-taken-up …" | Jun 03 17:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | 'UPCA should be abandoned and substantive reform at EU level taken up' - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| schestowitz | https://twitter.com/IAM_magazine/status/1267884283559018503 | Jun 03 17:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@IAM_magazine: Apple is regularly targeted in patent infringement suits but has seen a sharp fall in cases filed against it so far… https://t.co/OXoCuEGytQ | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@IAM_magazine: Apple is regularly targeted in patent infringement suits but has seen a sharp fall in cases filed against it so far… https://t.co/OXoCuEGytQ | Jun 03 17:35 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 03 19:27 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 19:27 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Client Quit) | Jun 03 19:28 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 19:29 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 03 19:48 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-174-226.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Jun 03 19:48 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!