●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Tuesday, November 03, 2020 ●●
● Nov 03
[17:13] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/02/better-late-than-never-german-liberal-party-files-parliamentary-question-on-unified-patent-court/#comments
[17:13] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Better Late Than Never German Liberal Party Files Parliamentary Question on Unified Patent Court - Kluwer Patent Blog
[17:13] schestowitz "
[17:13] schestowitz Why not deciding to have EU Regulation on EU Patent (including infringements provisions), such as the ones for EU Trademark and Model ?
[17:13] schestowitz Wouldnt be quicker, simpler, more consistent and efficient ?
[17:13] schestowitz REPLY
[17:13] schestowitz Kay.
[17:13] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2020 AT 10:36 AM
[17:13] schestowitz Again, political achievability.
[17:13] schestowitz Too many states in Europe have been against further expansion of centralized regulations (and consequent diminishment of things regulated nationally).
[17:13] schestowitz And patents are too obscure for the masses to push that topic.
[17:13] schestowitz Furthermore, why have a EUropean Monopoly Office if theres a European Patent Office?
[17:13] schestowitz That would be difficult to explain for the politicians, hence they tried to allow enhanced cooperation within the EU for those who want.
[17:13] schestowitz We dont have too much globalisation, we have too little.
[17:13] schestowitz One set of rules applicable in as many regions as possible would be much easier for the industry, SME, and avoid tax-evasions better, yet the nationalists cannot be sold to this idea, hence we live in a world of political compromises.
[17:13] schestowitz Make a compromise, live with it and try to vote in ways which can make it better.
[17:13] schestowitz REPLY
[17:13] schestowitz Attentive Observer
[17:13] schestowitz NOVEMBER 3, 2020 AT 12:11 PM
[17:13] schestowitz Thanks to Dr. Klopschinski to draw our attention to the questions raised by the Liberal Party.
[17:13] schestowitz I fear I have to agree with Concerned Observer, that the responses will amount to nothing more than hand-waving, smoke and mirrors and half truths.
[17:13] schestowitz In the comments to the draft bill the problems of the unequal footing of SMEs vs. big industry and the deleterious effects of the UPC on SMEs have been clearly set out. But what should not exist has been carefully ignored up to now. Chances that this attitude changes are very remote!
[17:13] schestowitz The Paper of Mr 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), S. 51-68, is very clear about the problems encountered by SMEs with the present European IP system.
[17:13] schestowitz One can expect that the German Government will rely on the EPO study about SMEs. The statistical validity of this study is very much subject to caution as only 12, in words twelve, SMEs have been scrutinised. And all scrutinised had only positive experiences with IP to report..
[17:13] schestowitz The level of fees are a clear deterrent for SMEs. Basic fee for an infringement action: 11000. Basic fee for a claim to nullity or a counter-claim to nullity: 20000. Do not tell me this is in favour of SMEs.
[17:13] schestowitz It is true that no question relating to Brexit has been brought forward, but the question raised by the FGCC in Point 106 is indirectly brought up.
[17:13] schestowitz It remains that trying to push the UPCA without an amended Art 7(2) UPCA is also posing a constitutional problem. How can a treaty be amended by a purely administrative committee?
[17:13] schestowitz The German government should also explain why countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, although having signed the UPCA will not ratify it: because it will be deleterious for their industry.
[17:13] schestowitz To Me Mollet-Vieville: the idea of an EU regulation on patents is an old one, but it requires unanimity and this is not achievable, hence the concept of enhanced cooperation. There were four drafts on a patent for the European community in the 60-70ties, and the Luxembourg agreement of 1975 on a Unitary Patent was dead borne.
[17:13] schestowitz On the other hand, is there a real need for a true supranational jurisdiction for patent litigation? The number of average validations of EP granted by the EPO lying between 5 and 7, does not justify the setting up of a separate jurisdiction, which on top of it can only be financed by the fees it levies.
[17:13] schestowitz The only technical area which might benefit from such a supranational jurisdiction is the pharmaceutical industry which validates in much more countries. This industry can certainly afford multiple litigations.
[17:13] schestowitz For trademarks it might be more justified to have a centralised approach, but is the experience with the EUIPO and the CJEU as positive as it was hoped when it was set up?
[17:13] schestowitz "
[17:18] schestowitz http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/03/a-few-thoughts-on-trust-and-judicial-independence/#comments
[17:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | A few thoughts on trust and judicial independence - Kluwer Patent Blog
[17:18] schestowitz |
[17:18] schestowitz Thank you, Thorsten. You quote Snyder: Without trust, we cant have the Rule of Law. For we patent attorneys, the Rule of Law is precious, and we should fight for it. So how do we preserve trust?
[17:18] schestowitz For we patent attorneys, trust in science is fundamental to our profession. From time to time, corporate interests try to erode trust in science. In our age of human-induced climate change, this is itself a disaster which has to be resisted. One way to resist is to flag up the work of Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes (link below) and her current book Why Trust Science, to anybody willing to listen. Impressive, in the book, is
[17:18] schestowitz how she solicits views from other academics and then replies to them. Judge for yourself how convincingly she sees off her academic rivals.
[17:18] schestowitz Perhaps the name Oreskes seems familiar? That would be because of her earlier book from 10 years ago Merchants of Doubt about how self-professed scientists promulgated corporate views, that there is no connection between smoking and cancer.
[17:18] schestowitz It is fashionable to deplore the USA. But Oreskes is at Harvard. I salute those who support her research there and wonder whether there is anybody outside the USA who is doing as much to nurture the idea that, at least in science and the law, fact should trump fiction, and that being selective with the facts, making economies with the truth (never mind promulgating an alternative truth debases us all and so is something deeply to
[17:18] schestowitz be deplored.
[17:18] schestowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
[17:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-en.wikipedia.org | Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia
[17:18] schestowitz |
● Nov 03
[21:26] *ChanServ has quit (shutting down)
[21:32] *ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has joined #techbytes
[21:32] *beckett.freenode.net gives channel operator status to ChanServ
[21:35] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
● Nov 03
[23:10] *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
[23:10] *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes
[23:12] *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
[23:13] *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
gemini://gemini.techrights.org/tr_text_version/irc-log-techbytes-031120.txt