=> back to Techrights (Main Index)
00:48 *psydruid has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
01:36 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
04:26 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
04:30 *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@v6xmmrhxmbafc.irc) has joined #techbytes
06:33 *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)
07:17 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
07:17 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
08:47 schestowitz;
08:47 schestowitz; New zine: How DNS Works!
=> New">↺ https://jvns.ca/blog/2022/04/26/new-zine--how-dns-works-/">New
08:47 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-jvns.ca | New zine: How DNS Works!
08:47 schestowitz;
08:47 schestowitz; I wanted to write about DNS for three reasons:
08:47 schestowitz; 1. DNS is everywhere! You basically cant use the internet without using DNS nobody is going to memorize all the IP addresses for every domain they use. You need to look them up with DNS!
08:47 schestowitz; 2. DNS has a really cool decentralized design! I love that it gives you control of your own little corner of the internet (it just costs ~$12/year to own a domain!), I love that the basic design is relatively straightforward, and I love that its worked basically the same way for 40 years and scaled relatively well over time
08:47 schestowitz; 3. DNS is very frustrating! Ive run into some VERY weird DNS problems over the years, and it can feel magical and incomprehensible if you dont know how it works. But once you learn how DNS works, these problems all become totally possible to understand.
08:47 schestowitz; And Ive never seen a clear explanation of DNS that included all of the technical details I wanted to know, so I decided to write one.
08:47 schestowitz;
08:47 schestowitz;
08:48 schestowitz;
08:48 schestowitz; Porting a game from CP/M to the ZX Spectrum 48k
=> Porting">↺ https://blog.steve.fi/porting_a_game_from_cp_m_to_the_zx_spectrum_48k.html">Porting
08:48 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.steve.fi | Porting a game from CP/M to the ZX Spectrum 48k
08:48 schestowitz;
08:48 schestowitz; As it was recently the 40th Anniversary of the ZX Spectrum 48k, the first computer I had, and the reason I got into programming in the first place, it crossed my mind that it might be possible to port my game from CP/M to the ZX Spectrum.
08:48 schestowitz;
08:48 schestowitz;
08:52 schestowitz;
08:52 schestowitz; Open source technology in logistics sector
=> Open">↺ https://ubuntu.com//blog/open-source-technology-logistics-sector">Open
08:52 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Open source technology in logistics sector | Ubuntu
08:52 schestowitz;
08:52 schestowitz; A good example of open source is Linux, which became the largest open-source software project in the world. It is a free, open-source Operating System (OS), released under the GNU General Public Licence (GPL). Linux licence prevents restrictions on the use of the software, anyone can run, study, modify, and redistribute the source code, or even sell copies of their modified code, as long as they do so under
08:52 schestowitz; the same licence.
08:52 schestowitz;
08:52 schestowitz;
08:53 schestowitz;
08:53 schestowitz; Whats new for Raspberry Pi with Ubuntu 22.04 LTS?
=> Whats">↺ https://ubuntu.com//blog/whats-new-for-raspberry-pi-ubuntu-22-04-lts">Whats
08:53 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Whats new for Raspberry Pi with Ubuntu 22.04 LTS? | Ubuntu
08:53 schestowitz;
08:53 schestowitz; Up until now, weve recommended users stick with the 4GB and 8GB versions of the Raspberry Pi 4 when running Ubuntu Desktop. With 22.04 we challenged ourselves to lower the barrier to entry for desktop developers by targeting the 2GB model as well.
08:53 schestowitz;
08:54 schestowitz;
08:54 schestowitz;
08:54 schestowitz; This realistic control panel takes the flight simulator experience to new heights
08:54 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.arduino.cc | This realistic control panel takes the flight simulator experience to new heights | Arduino Blog
08:54 schestowitz;
08:54 schestowitz; Programming the system was fairly straightforward. Whenever a switch/button is active, a function gets called that determines the exact pin and then sends a corresponding keypress over the USB HID protocol. Some lighting is controlled by an internal timer that sets flashing or color changing effects based on what was toggled.
08:54 schestowitz;
08:54 schestowitz;
08:56 schestowitz;
08:56 schestowitz; Krita 5.0.6 Released
=> Krita">↺ https://krita.org/en/item/krita-5-0-6-released/">Krita
08:56 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-krita.org | Krita 5.0.6 Released | Krita
08:56 schestowitz;
08:56 schestowitz; Today we release Krita 5.0.6. This is a bug fix release with two crash fixes: [...]
08:56 schestowitz;
08:56 schestowitz;
09:05 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
09:07 *Despatche has quit (Quit: Read error: Connection reset by deer)
09:08 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@4j9jkcntt88f2.irc) has joined #techbytes
09:17 *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@v6xmmrhxmbafc.irc) has joined #techbytes
09:55 schestowitz; =
09:55 schestowitz; x https://duo.com/decipher/microsoft-uncovers-nimbuspwn-flaws-in-linux-service
=> ↺ https://duo.com/decipher/microsoft-uncovers-nimbuspwn-flaws-in-linux-service
09:55 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-duo.com | Microsoft Uncovers 'Nimbuspwn' Flaws in Linux Service | Decipher
09:55 schestowitz; =
10:05 schestowitz;
10:05 schestowitz; 6 Dirty Secrets of the Linux and Open Source Industry
=> 6">↺ https://lunduke.substack.com/p/6-dirty-secrets-of-the-linux-and">6
10:05 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-lunduke.substack.com | 6 Dirty Secrets of the Linux and Open Source Industry
10:05 schestowitz;
10:05 schestowitz; As of 2018, the cost of a Platinum Membership to the Linux Foundation cost $500,000 USD (half a million) per year. A system that propelled The Linux Foundation revenue up to $177 Million dollars in 2021.
10:05 schestowitz; Platinum Members include Microsoft, Oracle, and Facebook (now Meta).
10:05 schestowitz; The Board of Directors of The Linux Foundation is made up of representatives from Facebook (Meta), Microsoft, and Amazon (who employs the Chair).
10:05 schestowitz;
10:05 schestowitz;
13:31 *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)
13:31 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@zj7ff6e5edb5q.irc) has joined #techbytes
14:08 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@memzbmehf99re.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:07 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
17:07 *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@v6xmmrhxmbafc.irc) has joined #techbytes
18:30 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
19:14 *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
19:15 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@memzbmehf99re.irc) has joined #techbytes
20:27 schestowitz; "
20:28 schestowitz; Concerned observer
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 21, 2022 AT 8:12 PM
20:28 schestowitz; Miquel, it is hard to find fault with any one of the four reasons that you have given as to why the PPA is not in force. Indeed, I wager that not even the UPCs most ardent supporters could generate a logically consistent (never mind persuasive) counter-argument to any of those reasons. Nevertheless, I rather think that you are missing the point.
20:28 schestowitz; As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the UPC has very strong political support in all of the right places. Also, the levels of political support are perhaps not unrelated to the fact that the architects of the UPC (who just happen to hail from firms that stand to benefit handsomely from the advent of the UPC) appear to have very strong political connections, or at least well-placed, effective lobbyists.
20:28 schestowitz; With strong political support, and with that support carefully guided in the right direction by the UPCs architects, it is hard to imagine how the project could fail. Remember, where there is a (political) will, then there will be a way.
20:28 schestowitz; The problem here is that all of your arguments relate to provisions of international law. Because there is no international court that has jurisdiction to (sensibly) interpret and enforce such laws, the citizens of Europe have no choice but to rely upon their national governments to adhere to the rule of law. In this instance, it seems that all of the relevant national governments have no intention whatsoever of doing this.
20:28 schestowitz; It may be a different story if any arguments can be found regarding incompatibilities with a national constitution or EU law. However, as demonstrated by the fate of the challenges to the second UPC law in Germany, even good arguments on those points may fail to persuade certain (politically connected / influenced?) courts.
20:28 schestowitz; Personally, I think that the most worrying aspect of all of this is the apparently large number of candidates for positions as UPC judges. This is because any judge worth his or her salt will surely see the force of your arguments, and hence conclude that, as yet, there is no LAWFUL basis for their employment by the UPC. Therefore, any judge who nevertheless accepts a position with the UPC will, by necessity, have made it impossible for them to be (
20:28 schestowitz; perceived as being) impartial regarding the assessment of any challenge to the legal basis for the UPC.
20:28 schestowitz; Having no judges that will be capable of (impartially) handling legal challenges that are certain to be raised by some litigants will hardly be the best look for the UPC. It will also be a dark day for democracy and the rule of law in Europe.
20:28 schestowitz; Patent robot
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 9:25 AM
20:28 schestowitz; Finally, someone who writes that the king is naked!
20:28 schestowitz; LightBlue
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 9:54 AM
20:28 schestowitz; How would the author of the article consider the legal ramifications of the fact that the UK did indeed ratify the agreement? Does the withdrawal of the ratification have the legal effect that the UK ratification never existed or are these circumstances simply outside the clear wording of the agreement?
20:28 schestowitz; Concerned observer
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 1:22 PM
20:28 schestowitz; So would that argument be based upon yet another (creative) interpretation of the legislation, in which the term have ratified is viewed as referring to the past tense only?
20:28 schestowitz; Setting aside the obvious counter-argument (that a common sense interpretation of have ratified includes a requirement for the ratification to still be in effect), what would be the implications of accepting such an interpretation?
20:28 schestowitz; Firstly, would you have viewed the PPA as having entered into force if, for example, both France and Germany had also withdrawn their ratifications before Austria expressed its consent to be bound by the PPA?
20:28 schestowitz; Secondly, if, despite its withdrawal, the UKs ratification is still viewed as having legal effect under Art 3 PPA, would that not mean that the PPA did not enter into force in January 2022, but instead in October 2021, when Slovenia provided notification of their ratification of the PPA? If so, I suggest that you contact the UPC Preparatory Committee to get them to correct their contradictory statements on when the PPA entered into
20:28 schestowitz; force.
20:28 schestowitz; Finally, if the UKs ratification still has legal effect under Art 3 PPA, would that not mean that the UKs ratification of the UPCA also continues to have legal effect? If so, what might this mean for the interpretation of Art 7 UPCA?
20:28 schestowitz; Lets face it, if you are looking for creative interpretations of the legislation that might overcome Miquels arguments, then your suggestion is not going to get you very far. Better luck next time.
20:28 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:43 PM
20:28 schestowitz; Thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose!
20:28 schestowitz; You see, one of the problems is that the UK withdrew its ratification before Germanys ratification, which is still pending.
20:28 schestowitz; Cheers.
20:28 schestowitz; Miquel
20:28 schestowitz; anonymous attorney
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 4:58 PM
20:28 schestowitz; Is the UK still deemed to be a Signatory State in the sense of Article 3 of the PPA, or can the reference to the UK be deemed voided by the UKs withdrawal?
20:28 schestowitz; Francine DELGOFFE
20:28 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 6:48 PM
20:28 schestowitz; The Legal Service of the Council is maintaining the webpage where the entry into force has been announced.
20:28 schestowitz; It also holds the power to collect the ratifications and interpret the conditions for its entry into force.
20:28 schestowitz; Since this agreement is outside of EU law, I suspect there has been some pressure to declare it into force, as they might know none of the participating countries will dare to file a complaint at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and not at the CJEU since it is not part of the agreement (good riddance some patent specialists will say).
20:29 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:29 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:41 PM
20:29 schestowitz; Dear Francine, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:29 schestowitz; Attentive Observer
20:29 schestowitz; APRIL 22, 2022 AT 6:55 PM
20:29 schestowitz; I can only but agree with Mr Monta.
20:29 schestowitz; What is going on is actually a scandal.
20:29 schestowitz; It is indeed the mere denial of the rule of law and opening the door to a legal jungle.
20:29 schestowitz; As far as Art 31/32 VCLT are concerned, I could at a pinch accept that a common declaration on Art 89 UPCA could replace the ratification of the UK by Italy. But certainly not as far as Art 3 of the PPA is concerned in which the UK is mentioned expressis verbis.
20:29 schestowitz; The preparatory committee announced the signature of a protocol amending the PAP. Nothing like this happened, or did I miss something?
20:29 schestowitz; Art 3 PAP is crystal clear and does not need any form of interpretation, just because it helps some vested interests.
20:29 schestowitz; The PAP has not legally entered into force. It can only be considered to be enter into force by a coup from the secretariat of the Commission. The secretariat has created ab nihilo an accomplished fact. This is not the rule of law.
20:29 schestowitz; Whatever happens, Art 7(2) UPCA is still valid and needs to be amended before the opening of the UPC.
20:29 schestowitz; In a conference about the UPC, Me Vron, a staunch supporter of the UPC, announced that negotiations would be held at the highest level in order to solve the problem of Art 7(2) UPCA before the actual opening of the UPC.
20:29 schestowitz; The problem is that there is no need for an interpretation of Art 7(2) UPCA as its wording is crystal clear.
20:29 schestowitz; According to Art 31 VCLT A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
20:29 schestowitz; In how far does Art 7(2) UPC need to be interpreted? This is the text which has been ratified by the parliaments and only the ratification of a properly amended UPCA could remove the problem.
20:29 schestowitz; What is it good for the Commission to start actions against some East European member states for not respecting the rule of law, if pushed by a very strong lobby, the Commission itself denies the rule of law.
20:29 schestowitz; I also agree with Concerned Observer that it cannot be expected that judges accepting to sit at the UPC under the present conditions, can be truly independent. By getting a salary from the UPC, they have vested interests in the UPC and can thus not be considered independent.
20:29 schestowitz; I have been told that some potential UPC judges are counting the income they miss due to the late entry into force of the UPC. And those judges should be independent?
20:29 schestowitz; Beside the allegation in Art 20 UPCA that the UPC shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy, there is no guarantee that the UPC can be considered as a Court of the EU member states.
20:29 schestowitz; Asked why the UPCA was not submitted to the CJEU to check its compatibility, Me Vron replied that nobody thought of it! If you believe it, you still believe in Father Christmas.
20:29 schestowitz; At the UPC (and at the EPO) there are only two degrees of jurisdiction but no instance of revision in the normal meaning of the concept that is in substance. Revision can only be obtained on procedural matters. Can such an arrangement be in conformity with Union law? Doubts are permitted as in all EU members states there are three degrees of jurisdiction, even at administrative level.
20:29 schestowitz; But why bother with the rule of law in view of the possibility for all the supporters of the UPC to fill their pockets?
20:29 schestowitz; After Brexit, some legal specialists claimed that since the UK ratified the UPCA it could still remain a contracting state. The withdrawal of the ratification simply means that there has not been a ratification.
20:29 schestowitz; The corresponding circumstances are not simply outside the clear wording of the agreement. Parts of the agreement need to be revised in a legal correct way and not by arrangement of some governments manifestly ignoring the rule of law and trying to misuse the VCLT.
20:29 schestowitz; Alessandro Cossu
20:29 schestowitz; APRIL 23, 2022 AT 2:46 PM
20:29 schestowitz; Outstanding article, clearly written and based on sound legal arguments.
20:29 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:29 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:41 PM
20:29 schestowitz; Dear Alessandro, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:29 schestowitz; Dr. Christof Augenstein
20:29 schestowitz; APRIL 23, 2022 AT 3:29 PM
20:29 schestowitz; I think that the opinnion expressed here do not sufficiently consider the will of the Contracting Member States. As with other contracts as well, a gap or an obstacle does not necessarily result in the situation that the contract needs to be concluded again. Art. 31 VCLT allows to take into account the object and purpose. These objects and purposes can still be achieved without the UK being a member state, in particular, if the other
20:29 schestowitz; Contracting Member Staes wish to continue.
20:29 schestowitz; The third sentence of Art. 31 adds to this all subsequent agreements on the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions, all subsequent practices in the application of the treaty which demonstrate the agreement of the parties on its interpretation, and all relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. Art. 32 Art. 32, on the other hand, provides for supplementary means of interpretation.
20:29 schestowitz; These supplementary means of interpretation include the preparatory work on the treaty and the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty.
20:29 schestowitz; It is clear that the will of the Contracting Member States is precisely in favor of maintaining the Protocol (and ultimately the UPC). There is no indication why the basis for the introduction of the Unified Patent Court should completely cease to exist as a result of Brexit. Rather, the treaty must be interpreted as a whole and its aim and purpose must be taken into account.
20:29 schestowitz; Among other things, the introduction was intended to save the respective users and participants time and money for patent protection in Europe. The idea and vision was and is that an owner of a European Patent can enforce patents centrally, without the danger of deviating or even contradicting decisions for its infringement case.
20:29 schestowitz; For these considerations, there is at least the possibility that the protocol and UPCA are considered as legally valid, in accordance with the will of the member states. As UPC decisions are directly enforceable, I cant see, which national authority should then stop these enforcements if the Contracting Member States are still in favour of the UPC.
20:30 schestowitz; Thus, I would rather prepare for the UPC than sticking to a pure literal interpretation of legal documents, ignoring the will of the Contracting Member States.
20:30 schestowitz; Patent robot
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 5:41 PM
20:30 schestowitz; I think that the opinnion expressed here do not sufficiently consider the will of the Contracting Member States.
20:30 schestowitz; The will is clear but also the law is clear. Thus, why the CMS do not want to amend the UPCA and the PAP according to their will?
20:30 schestowitz; One of those...
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 26, 2022 AT 4:51 PM
20:30 schestowitz; Imagine the UPC orders a company to stop infringement, and the douane/authorities step in.
20:30 schestowitz; And then the infringing company steps to court to stop the authorities from intervening, pointing out the flaws of this construct and how it came to be.
20:30 schestowitz; I wonder if all national courts in the member states will say not my business, this is not for national courts anymore.?
20:30 schestowitz; Might cause even more priblems than just asking Strasbourg beforehand
20:30 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:31 PM
20:30 schestowitz; Thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:30 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:40 PM
20:30 schestowitz; Dear Christof, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:30 schestowitz; Leo Steenbeek
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 10:37 AM
20:30 schestowitz; Contrary to what has been asserted above, the Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA) of the UPC Agreement has entered into force in a legally correct manner.
20:30 schestowitz; The reasons are as follows.
20:30 schestowitz; In view of the primacy of EU law, anything in the PPA and the UPC Agreement itself that is in violation of EU law is null and void.
20:30 schestowitz; For the reasons set out below, participation of non-EU states in the UPC Agreement is a violation of EU law, and that means that since Brexit, UK participation in the UPC Agreement and its PPA is a violation of EU law. This means that
20:30 schestowitz; where the PPA requires a ratification by the UK, that requirement is null and void, so that it suffices for the PPA to enter into force that it has been joined by 13 states including Germany and France, and
20:30 schestowitz; where the UPC Agreement refers to London as a seat of a part of the UPC Central Division, such references are a violation of EU law that can be addressed by the UPC Administrative Committee under Article 87(2) UPC Agreement. The Administrative Committee could do so e.g. on 8 AM of the morning that the UPC Agreement enters into force, so that when at 9 AM the UPC opens its doors, it has a Central Division with seats that each have a clear
20:30 schestowitz; jurisdiction laid down in the UPC Agreement.
20:30 schestowitz; The reasons that only EU states can join the UPC Agreement are as follows:
20:30 schestowitz; 1.Under the AETR decision C 22/70 of the EU Court of Justice (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61970CJ0022), each time the EU, with a view to implementing a common policy envisaged by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, adopts provisions laying down common rules, whatever form they may take, the Member States no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with third
=> ↺ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61970CJ0022),
20:30 schestowitz; countries which affect those rules or alter their scope.
20:30 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-eur-lex.europa.eu | EUR-Lex - 61970CJ0022 - EN - EUR-Lex
20:30 schestowitz; As the UPC Agreement comprises several aspects that touch EU law, e.g. the EU regulations on Supplementary Protection Certificates, the EU IPR enforcement directive, and the EU regulations on the unitary patent, the EU states are prevented from entering into a UPC Agreement together with non-EU states like Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, and after Brexit the UK.
20:30 schestowitz; 2.Under Opinion 1/09 of the EU Court of Justice (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CV0001), it is for the national courts and tribunals and for the Court of Justice to ensure the full application of European Union law in all Member States and to ensure judicial protection of an individuals rights under that law. Consequently, the Member States cannot confer the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between individuals
=> ↺ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CV0001),
20:30 schestowitz; in the field of patents on a court created by an international agreement which would deprive those courts of their task, as ordinary courts within the European Union legal order, to implement European Union law and, thereby, of the power provided for in Article 267 TFEU, or, as the case may be, the obligation, to refer questions for a preliminary ruling in the field concerned. However, it would be OK to confer such jurisdiction to a court that
20:30 schestowitz; is like the Benelux Court common to a number of Member States, and situated, consequently, within the judicial system of the European Union, so that its decisions are subject to mechanisms capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of the rules of the European Union.
20:30 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-eur-lex.europa.eu | EUR-Lex - 62009CV0001 - EN - EUR-Lex
20:30 schestowitz; As the draft agreement discussed in CJEU Opinion 1/09 intended to cover non-EU states like Switzerland, the draft agreement would establish a patent court outside the EU legal order that is incompatible with EU law. However, a patent court common to EU states only would be within the EU judicial system and thus compatible with EU law.
20:30 schestowitz; This shows that where the UPC Agreement and its PPA refer to non-EU states like UK, such references are a violation of EU law, and thus null and void in view of the primacy of EU law and an issue that can be repaired by the UPC Administrative Committee under Article 87(2) UPC Agreement.
20:30 schestowitz; The candidate UPC judges thus have nothing to worry about as regards the legal basis for their employment.
20:30 schestowitz; Concerned observer
20:30 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 4:11 PM
20:30 schestowitz; participation of non-EU states in the UPC Agreement is a violation of EU law
20:30 schestowitz; Well, it seems that this has not always been the official line of the UPCs strongest proponents. I recall that, after Brexit but before withdrawal of the UKs ratification, there was a time when even Prof Tilmann accepted as per the arguments of Gordon and Pascoe that Brexit was no barrier to the UKs participation in the UPC.
20:31 schestowitz; You will therefore have to forgive me if I disagree with your statement. After all, the UPC is, by nature, a court established by international law, and NOT by EU law. This legal basis for the establishment of the UPC is not in any way changed by a provision of the UPCA which merely indicates the laws upon which the UPC, once established, will base its judgements.
20:31 schestowitz; Of course, there is a flip side to the UPC being a court established under international law (and having no appeal / remittal connections with national courts of EU Member States). That is, according to principles that have been firmly established by CJEU rulings, the UPC will not qualify as court or tribunal of a Member State in the sense of Article 267 TFEU.
20:31 schestowitz; Thus, if you are looking for a violation of EU law, look no further than that UPC Agreement. This is because it purports to establish an international court that supplants national courts of EU Member States and interprets and applies EU law BUT is an international court that (according to CJEU case law) is not eligible to make preliminary references to the CJEU. As I recall, the CJEU has consistently frowned upon this the kind of set-up, as
20:31 schestowitz; being inconsistent with the autonomy of the EU legal order.
20:31 schestowitz; Simona Fonzi
20:31 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 5:31 PM
20:31 schestowitz; a court that is like the Benelux Court common to a number of Member States
20:31 schestowitz; The Benelux Court is a common court between Member States, because it collaborates with national courts, who are the Guardian of EU law (under TEU 19(1)), as clarified by the CJEU in its 1/09 opinion:
20:31 schestowitz; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CV0001
=> ↺ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62009CV0001
20:31 schestowitz; 66. As is evident from Article 19(1) TEU, the guardians of that legal order and the judicial system of the European Union are the Court of Justice and the courts and tribunals of the Member States.
20:31 schestowitz; UPC is not a common court between the Member States, as it replaces the National Courts.
20:31 schestowitz; You will find the same reasoning in Achmea decision (2018) on the dissolution of intra-EU ISDS courts.
20:31 schestowitz; It was in the first Stjernas complaint in 2017:
20:31 schestowitz; https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bfe0c73a-8b0e-4e37-9efd-f1407e3e9a92
=> ↺ https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bfe0c73a-8b0e-4e37-9efd-f1407e3e9a92
20:31 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-UPC and Germany: Status update - Constitutional complaint, ratification timeline and more - Lexology
20:31 schestowitz; Violation against European Union law: The complainant argues that the Unified Patent Court doesnt comply with the requirements that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), relying on Article 4 subsection 3 and Article 19 subsection 1 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), has established as regards the creation of an international court within the legal
20:31 schestowitz; system of the European Union. Neither would it be the case that the UPC is a common court of Member States as is the case for the Benelux Court of Justice. The complainant highlights that the UPC isnt embedded in the system of the CJEU and national courts and would therefore breach the principles of autonomy of Union law and of the completeness of the system of legal remedies. This would infringe the cooperative relationship between the national
20:31 schestowitz; courts and the CJEU.
20:31 schestowitz; Now the question is why the German Constitutional Court did not escalate this point to the CJEU?
20:31 schestowitz; zoobab
20:31 schestowitz; APRIL 26, 2022 AT 1:22 PM
20:31 schestowitz; Now the question is why the German Constitutional Court did not escalate this point to the CJEU?
20:31 schestowitz; The German Constitution decided to ignore the EU law problems, citing its previous practice:
20:31 schestowitz; https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2021/06/rs20210623_2bvr221620en.html
20:31 schestowitz; With exception of violations of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights [] infringements of EU law can generally not therefore be challenged in constitutional complaint proceedings
20:31 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de | Bundesverfassungsgericht - Decisions - Unsuccessful applications for preliminary injunction against the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
20:31 schestowitz; Now the possible non-compliance of the UPCA with the treaties has still not been addressed. TEU 19(1) is the CJEU and the Courts of the Member States (see opinion 1/09). EU law is being outsourced to a court which has no link with the Courts of the Member States.
20:31 schestowitz; While the Benelux Court design complies with 19(1) because it talks to National Courts of BE/NL/LU, the UPC does not talk to any national court.
20:31 schestowitz; Putting a label on the UPC to declare its a common court wont change this design flaw.
20:31 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:31 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:31 PM
20:31 schestowitz; Thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:31 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:31 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:34 PM
20:31 schestowitz; Dear Simona, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:31 schestowitz; Winfried Tilmann
20:31 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 11:00 AM
20:31 schestowitz; Why the PPA is legally in force
20:31 schestowitz; Winfried Tilmann
20:31 schestowitz; A comment on Miquel Montas blog
20:31 schestowitz; 1. Binding confirmation by the GS
20:31 schestowitz; The General Secretariat (GS) of the EU Council as depositary of the PPA (Art 2(4) PPA) has confirmed that the requirements of the PPAs entry into force pursuant to its Art 1-3 have been fulfilled with Austrias PPA ratification. This confirmation binds the CMS, because they have installed the GS just for that purpose. They have entrusted the GS with the task of taking account of all relevant legal aspects of the entry into force of the UPCA,
20:32 schestowitz; the PPA and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPriv) (Art 76(2) VCLT). Moreover, there is no other instance competent to decide on the question of entry into force of the three legal bodies: The CJEU lacks competence (the PPA is part of an international treaty system). The ICJ may only be called upon, if all CMS have accepted its jurisdiction, either in general, in the UPCA or in the PPA (this is not the case), or ad hoc (there is no signal
20:32 schestowitz; for such an ad hoc acceptance of even one CMS, not to speak of all CMS). The UPC has not opened its doors, and once it will have started to work the entry into force of the PPA is an obsolete question.
20:32 schestowitz; This one consideration, Miquel, already answers your question, alea iacta, or better: the Rubicon has already been crossed. But I will continue trying to answer the various arguments which the GS, in your opinion, would have had to consider.
20:32 schestowitz; 2. 13 CMS have expressed their consent to be bound by the PPA
20:32 schestowitz; The GS, in its notification, has communicated which way to express their consent to be bound by the PPA (Art 2(2) and (3) PPA) the different states have chosen. Ratification, Miquel, stressed by you is not the only way to express this consent; a unilateral declaration is another one (Art 2(3) PPA; Art 13 VCLT). Art 2(3) PPA has left it to the CMS to decide how to express their consent to be bound according to their internal constitutional
20:32 schestowitz; requirements. In some Member States this could be done by a unilateral declaration without ratification by the national Parliament. This is not anti-democratic (as suggested). It has to be borne in mind that all 13 CMS have received parliamentary approval (in Denmark even approval by means of a referendum) for the UPCA itself. Since the PPA is only an intermediate step towards the entry into force of the UPCA and has no independent significance, it
20:32 schestowitz; can be assumed that a parliamentary approval of the UPCA implicitly also relates to the PPA.
20:32 schestowitz; 3. Legal reasons probably considered by the GS
20:32 schestowitz; a) The GS has not disclosed to the CMS and to the public the legal reasons it has considered regarding the effects of UKs withdrawal on the PPAs entry into force. However, such information is not foreseen in the PPA and the UPCA and, therefore, is not necessary for the binding effect of its confirmation to take effect. We can only speculate on the reasons considered.
20:32 schestowitz; b) The GS may have taken into consideration the provision of Art. 2(a)(v) of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement (WA) stipulating that the agreements between Member States entered into in their capacity as Member States of the Union are to be considered for the purposes of the WA as Union law which, as far as they concern the UK, cease to be applicable, if they are not expressly upheld by the rules of the WA at the end of the transition period (which is
20:32 schestowitz; not the case for the UPCA and for the PPA). Art. 2(a)(v) WA is applicable not only to agreements being in force but also to agreements awaiting entry into force but already originating obligations for the signatory states which is true for the UPCA and the PPA (Art 18 VCLT).
20:32 schestowitz; c) The GS will also have applied the common rules of international treaty law, including the provisions of the Vienna Agreement on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), and their effect on the interpretation of the PPA.
20:32 schestowitz; 4. Application of the VCLT
20:32 schestowitz; Turning to the VCLT, which of its rules are applicable for a case, as present, of treaty rules referring to a signatory state who definitely will not ratify the treaty?
20:32 schestowitz; a) What are the facts the GS had to consider?
20:32 schestowitz; (1) The UK is a UPCA-signatory state whose position (a) because of the withdrawal of its ratification of the UPCA and the PPA and (b) because it is no more an EU-MS and (c) because it does not want to become an EU-MS again (Brexit), must be considered to be as irrelevant for the working, the force of the UPCA and the PPA as the position of (i) a non-signatory EU-MS/EPC-MS like Spain or (ii) a Lugano-MS/EPC-MS like Switzerland or (III) an
20:32 schestowitz; EPC-MS but neither EU-MS nor Lugano-MS like Turkey (and now the UK) or even (IV) a non-EU-, non-Lugano-, non-EPC-MS like the USA, Japan, Korea and China.
20:32 schestowitz; (2) This outsider position of the UK (EPC-MS, no EU-MS, no Lugano-MS) arose after the signature dates of the UPCA and the PPA and, from the point of view of all signatory states at the respective signature dates, completely surprisingly.
20:32 schestowitz; (3) The purpose of the rules in Art. 7(2) UPCA (London part of the central division), Art. 89(1) UPCA (entry into force of UPCA) and Art. 3 PPA (entry into force of PPA) is to respect the political and economic weight of the UK and its importance for the UPCA in terms of the number of patent applications and the expertise of its judges. The UK itself no longer claims this respect. From the perspective of the remaining EU Member States this weight of
20:32 schestowitz; the UK for the UPCA is no longer relevant since the UPC was created as a common court of EU Member States without participation of third countries.
20:32 schestowitz; (4) From the perspective of the international patent community, the UPCA continues to appear useful without the UKs participation. None of the other signatory states has expressed that the UPCA is of no interest to them after the UK has ceased to participate. On the contrary, all signatory states (apart from Poland, which currently refuses ratification for other reasons) have continued to participate in the preparatory work, and some have even
20:32 schestowitz; ratified the PPA after the UK left.
20:32 schestowitz; b) Now, how will the GS have read the VCLT-rules regarding these facts?
20:32 schestowitz; (1) The entry into force of the UPCA and the PPA does not only depend on the wording of their entry-into-force-clause but also on a possible agreement of the contracting parties (Art. 24(1) VCLT: A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree). It may have been the view of the GS that the remaining UPCA signatory states (excluding the UK) have agreed (1) that the
20:32 schestowitz; application of Art. 7(2) UPCA (London Part of the Central Chamber), Art. 89(1) UPCA (entry into force UPCA) and Art. 3 PPA (entry into force of the PPA) must take into account the new fact that the UK has irrevocably withdrawn from the circle of contracting states and (2) that the UPCA and the PPA should nevertheless enter into force without the need to sign and ratify a new version. In view of this situation, clearly understood and supported by all
20:32 schestowitz; CMS, the GS may have come to the conclusion that a formalisation of this agreement (joint declaration), is not necessary to prove its existence under Art 24(1) VCLT (see 5. below).
20:32 schestowitz; (2) Moreover, an interpretation of Art. 7(2) UPCA (London part of the central division), Art. 89(1) UPCA (entry into force UPCA) and Art. 3 PPA (entry into force of the PPA) leads to the same result. Art. 31(1) VCLT provides: A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose). According to Art 31(2) VCLT, the context
20:32 schestowitz; for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, its preamble and annexes (principle of integration). One of the elements regarding the context, objective and purpose concerns the link between corresponding provisions between several treaties. If a treaty is linked to another one, consideration must be given to concordant interpretations between the two instruments. Thus, the Protocol must be read in
20:32 schestowitz; light of the object and purpose of the UPCA.
20:32 schestowitz; The object and purpose of the PPA is serving the preparation of the UPCA. The PPA is an ancillary (serving) agreement to the UPCA. It is not a stand-alone agreement to be interpreted for itself, in isolation. An interpretation in good faith in accordance with Art 31 VCLT leads to the result that the signatory states, when formulating the entry into force clause of the PPA, had the intention to mirror the entry into force clause of the Agreement (Art
20:32 schestowitz; 89(1) UPCA). The signatory states therefore established that the same three Member States ratifications which were required for the entry into force of the UPCA were also required for the entry into force of the Protocol. They mistakenly believed to express this concordance by expressly naming the three states which indeed qualified for Art 89(1) UPCA at the time of the PPAs conclusion.
20:32 schestowitz; Therefore, the PPAs mentioning expressly the three states F, G and UK must be seen as an imperfect reference to the states defined in Art 89(1) of the UPCA, the entry into force of which the PPA is obliged to serve.
20:32 schestowitz; (3) What the VCLT definitely wants to avoid is arriving at an interpretation of a treaty clause which would lead to manifestly absurd and unreasonable results (Art 32 lit. b VCLT). Considering the circumstances of the conclusion of the PPA and its role as a mere preparatory step towards the entry into force of the UPCA it would be manifestly absurd and unreasonable within the meaning of Article 32(b) VCLT to assume that , while the UPCA itself can
20:32 schestowitz; come into force without the UK, the PPA`s entry into force would require a participation of the UK which the UK refused.
20:32 schestowitz; 5. No interpretative declaration
20:32 schestowitz; The GS, confirming the PPAs entry into force, did not wait for a joint declaration of CMS-EU-ambassadors envisaged by the Preparatory Committee. Therefore, it must be assumed that it had arrived at the conclusion that such an explicit interpretative declaration, although possibly useful in political terms, was not necessary for legal reasons. Art. 2(a)(v) WA as well as the VCLT may have been the reasons, and I agree.
20:32 schestowitz; Patent robot
20:32 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 5:38 PM
20:32 schestowitz; Moreover, an interpretation of Art. 7(2) UPCA (London part of the central division), Art. 89(1) UPCA (entry into force UPCA) and Art. 3 PPA (entry into force of the PPA) leads to the same result
20:32 schestowitz; So, according to this interpretation, UK becomes Italy and London becomes Milan, correct?
20:33 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:33 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:33 PM
20:33 schestowitz; Thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:33 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:33 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:40 PM
20:33 schestowitz; Dear Winfried, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose!
20:33 schestowitz; May I add that a depositary of an international treaty does not have any decision making powers (only the functions set out in art. 77 VCLT)
20:33 schestowitz; Cheers
20:33 schestowitz; Miquel
20:33 schestowitz; Attentive Observer
20:33 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 6:23 PM
20:33 schestowitz; To Mr Augenstein, Steenbeek and Tilmann,
20:33 schestowitz; Nobody has ever said that the will of the contracting states should be ignored, but even if Art 31 has to be applied, it cannot be virtually applied.
20:33 schestowitz; That Brexit does not mean the end of the UPC, but the end of the participation of the UK in the UPC is not a disputed fact. But the absence of the UK as one of the necessary signatories of the PPA remains a fact as it is written black on white in the PAP. It is also written in Art 7(2) UPCA which here again mentions expressis verbis London as one of the seats of the central (?) division. One should not forget the work in the preparatory phase of the
20:33 schestowitz; UPCA which ended up with Art 7(2) UPCA as we know it. And now by intervention of the some spirit, since the UK is not any longer part of the UPCA we can ignore what has been signed and ratified. Please do not pull my leg.
20:33 schestowitz; We were told by the Preparatory Committee that we will see the signature of a protocol under Art 31 about the PPA at a meeting of the COREPER.
20:33 schestowitz; Have we seen such a protocol signed at the COREPER? Not to my knowledge, so all what is said here about the entry of force of the PAP appears prima facie irrelevant.
20:33 schestowitz; The UPC has been designed to help the big industry and the lawyers gravitation around it to be the prime beneficiaries of the UPC and not the allegedly European SMEs!
20:33 schestowitz; The story of savings is only valid if there is a validation in all the UPCA member states. In view of an average validation in 5 member states the story of the savings is not gullible. This fallacy should be brought to an end.
20:33 schestowitz; Primacy of EU law, is a mere declaration of intention in the UPCA and now to come and claim that anything in the PPA and the UPC Agreement itself that is in violation of EU law is null and void is really laughable. It is not by declaring primacy of EU law that the UPCA is a treaty under Article 267 TFEU. I would rather claim it is not, as it misses one the important aspects of EU and national laws law that is the existence of three levels of
20:33 schestowitz; jurisdiction.
20:33 schestowitz; When now Mr Tilmann explains us that every is honky dory and it can simply be ignored that the UK has ever participated in the setting up of the UPC, with corresponding consequences on Art 7(2) it is no more than an interpretation which as valid as when he claimed that the UK could continue to participate to UPCA even when it had withdrawn of it.
20:33 schestowitz; Dear lawyers, I expect a bit more serious agreements to be put forward, but not an argumentation which goes against the way the UPCA has been designed and more important ratified.
20:33 schestowitz; If the UPCA enters into force and the UPC opens its doors it will be in violation of the UPCA itself and by legal coup resulting from a fait accompli by the secretariat with the aim of filing the pockets of the big industry and the lawyers supporting it.
20:33 schestowitz; Stop taking us for a ride!
20:33 schestowitz; Leo Steenbeek
20:33 schestowitz; APRIL 25, 2022 AT 6:40 PM
20:33 schestowitz; The primacy of EU law does not follow from a provision in the UPC Agreement.
20:33 schestowitz; Instead, that provision merely restates a key feature of EU law since the very beginning of the EU, see e.g. the CJEU decisions
20:33 schestowitz; C 26/62 Van Gend & Loos (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61962CJ0026):
=> ↺ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61962CJ0026):
20:33 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-eur-lex.europa.eu | EUR-Lex - 61962CJ0026 - EN - EUR-Lex
20:33 schestowitz; The European Economic Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights.
20:33 schestowitz; C 6/64 Costa v E.N.E.L. (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61964CJ0006):
=> ↺ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61964CJ0006):
20:33 schestowitz; By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply.
20:33 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-eur-lex.europa.eu | EUR-Lex - 61964CJ0006 - EN - EUR-Lex
20:33 schestowitz; By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the states to the Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves.
20:33 schestowitz;
20:33 schestowitz; Further, EU Regulation 542/2014 clarifies that the UPC is a common court within the EU legal order.
20:33 schestowitz; Concerned observer
20:33 schestowitz; APRIL 26, 2022 AT 11:53 AM
20:33 schestowitz; Leo, with all due respect, your arguments are based upon an elevation of form over substance.
20:33 schestowitz; As I pointed out to Miquel, the UPC has very strong political support in all of the right places. This includes the European Commission and Parliament. It is therefore not at all surprising to me that EU Regulation 542/2014 effectively parrots the assertion in Art 1 UPCA that the UPC is a court common to the Contracting Member States. The problem as I see it is that there is simply no way to square that assertion with the (very clear) case law
20:34 schestowitz; of the CJEU regarding the principle of autonomy of the EU legal order.
20:34 schestowitz; I do not doubt that the relevant actors will be able to make the UPC a fait accompli by concocting reasons why the relevant agreements are (or will be) in force. Just do not expect me to agree that all of this is perfectly lawful, or that there is a shred of democratic legitimacy or accountability about the underhand way in which all of this is being done.
20:34 schestowitz; Of course, the elephant in the room is the CJEU. Here is where uncertainty creeps in. That is, despite the fact that the CJEU has occasionally shown that it can be sensitive to political imperatives, the damage that the UPC will inflict upon the autonomy of the EU legal order may well be too much for even a panel of politically appointed judges to swallow.
20:34 schestowitz; We shall just have to wait and see. Nevertheless, I remain astonished at the lengths to which the architects of the UPC will go, and the damage to the rule of law (and to small businesses) in Europe that they are prepared to inflict, simply to bring to life a court that will fill their pockets and please a small number of litigants.
20:34 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:32 PM
20:34 schestowitz; Dear Mike, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:34 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:33 PM
20:34 schestowitz; Dear Leo, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:34 schestowitz; Attentive Observer
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 26, 2022 AT 2:02 AM
20:34 schestowitz; Dear Mr Stenbeek,
20:34 schestowitz; If I am not wrong you are the head of the patent department of Philips.
20:34 schestowitz; There is no reason to be afraid to acknowledge this fact.
20:34 schestowitz; That you your company are a keen supporter of the UPC is thus no surprise and as such perfectly allowed to your opinion.
20:34 schestowitz; It allows however to take your opinion not only with a pinch of salt but rather with a barge full of it.
20:34 schestowitz; I can understand your pro domo plea in favour of the UPC, but it does remain an opinion and not a legal certainty as has been shown by many commenters on this thread.
20:34 schestowitz; Since 2016 and the Brexit, it would have been ample time to amend the UPCA and the PAP. I never heard one sound reason for not doing so.
20:34 schestowitz; You want your playground for big industry, but you should be well aware that you open a single point of attack against European industry in general and European SMEs in particular.
20:34 schestowitz; With the present average number of validations those SMEs could leave happily within their borders and from time to time export a bit. With the UP/UPC system they have to leave in fear of being attacked by the big European and international industry.
20:34 schestowitz; In view of the very short time limits of procedures before the UPC, they will have to react quickly which boils down to have quick financial resources if they want to be be able to defend themselves against infringement attacks. If they want to defend themselves by a nullity action the basic fee is nearly double. Do you think this is fair? I do not.
20:34 schestowitz; Just a question: why no impact study of the UP/UPC system on SMEs has ever been undertaken? This was done for EPLA, but never for the UPC. Even Mrs Froehlinger, Mme UPC, has acknowledged this fact.
20:34 schestowitz; The ceilings in recoverable damages is just for pleasing politicians who were very keen on swallowing all the drivel uttered by the pro UPC lobby. This lobby has for members the big industry and the big internationally active lawyer firms.
20:34 schestowitz; When you see how Mr Tillmann has held the hand of the ministry of justice so as to mislead the MP when the second ratification bill was presented to the German parliament, it is disgrace to say the least. Compare the explanatory note and an article of his in GRUR Int a few months before, the correlation is plainly manifest.
20:34 schestowitz; Stop telling us legal gobbledygook which strangely is always changing in presence of newvproblems and come up with sound legal reasons!
20:34 schestowitz; What all those staunch supporters of the UP/UPC are telling us is no more as a pro domo plea. You should at least have the decency of owing it up.
20:34 schestowitz; The VCLT is a way to solve the problem, but what you are presently doing is misusing it!
20:34 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:30 PM
20:34 schestowitz; Dear Attentive Observer, thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:34 schestowitz; Patent robot
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 26, 2022 AT 9:47 AM
20:34 schestowitz; JURI Committee of the European Parliament, March 2020:
20:34 schestowitz; In case that the UK wanted to quit the UPCA [as it did in July 2020], the section of the Central Division of the UPC with responsibility for life sciences, chemistry and metallurgy cases with seat in London, will have to be moved. The London section would not be replaced automatically with another seat, as this would need an amendment of the UPCA by unanimous agreement of all other Contracting Member States.
20:34 schestowitz; Where is this unanimous agreement?
20:34 schestowitz; Miquel Monta
20:34 schestowitz; APRIL 28, 2022 AT 2:32 PM
20:34 schestowitz; Thank you for your comments, I am happy to see that the blog sparkled some debate. That was its purpose! Miquel
20:34 schestowitz; "
20:35 schestowitz; http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/21/upc-four-reasons-on-why-the-ppa-is-not-legally-in-force/#comments
20:35 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | UPC: four reasons on why the PPA is not legally in force - Kluwer Patent Blog
22:57 *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
=> back to Techrights (Main Index) This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini;lang=en-GB