tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8674491346824630444..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: LIVE UPDATE: Delayed agreement on unified patent due to reservations on location of Central DivisionVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76247892516621656262011-12-06T16:44:40.841+00:002011-12-06T16:44:40.841+00:00Absolutely, Annsley! The substantive provisions ar...Absolutely, Annsley! The substantive provisions are the priority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84822876301736216512011-12-06T15:16:32.029+00:002011-12-06T15:16:32.029+00:00@Anonymous at 9:12AM -
Its not that we and me in ...@Anonymous at 9:12AM -<br /><br />Its not that we and me in particular are being critical that the Council is giving too much attention to the seat of the court. I am happy that they give the seat of court a lot of attention, but not at the risk of substantive provisions. Its all well and good if X city gets the Court, but we will still be faced with having to resolve the problematic provisions of the Regulation.Annsley Merelle Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184706067469338128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78958269688333599112011-12-06T12:49:52.720+00:002011-12-06T12:49:52.720+00:00Lots of good advice from Professor Peers. It'...Lots of good advice from Professor Peers. It's never persuasive, when trying to get people to change their minds, to urge that if they don't, they're either fools or knaves. The negotiators are doing their best. But they are unwilling to accept advice from those who will have to use the system (or avoid it). I can see where 40 years might be regarded as a reasonable time to discuss the Unitary Patent. But in any system like this, the details are vital. This particular version has only been on the table for 9 months, and there has been a conspicuous unwillingness to engage with users about these vital details. It is reasonable to want a deal, but not at any price. Objectors judge the current price too high. They also judge that another couple of months of negotiation would be well worth while, if it offered the chance of improvements.<br /><br />Finally, I haven't heard industry threatening to wreck the deal (tempted though they might be if they could think of a way to do it). Industry's message is: "It's a bad deal. It makes the system worse. We want a system that's an improvement on what we have now. This isn't it."Tim Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17602499539000907352011-12-06T11:21:48.927+00:002011-12-06T11:21:48.927+00:00@Anonymous Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:12:00 AM
...@Anonymous Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:12:00 AM<br /><br />I think you are right, Barnier apparently refered to the UK and Germany:<br /><br />http://blog.ksnh.eu/en/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61229799560481637292011-12-06T09:12:36.574+00:002011-12-06T09:12:36.574+00:00My regard of the press corps, not particularly hig...My regard of the press corps, not particularly high to start with, when down a few more notches at the end of that conference when, given the opportunity to ask which two countries are still blocking the compromise because of the seat of the central division, no journalist rose to the occasion. It isn't as if Commissioner Barnier hadn't given a pretty obvious hint, correctly interpreted, in my opinion, by Professor Peers. When a Frenchman, like Barnier, veiledly berates the "two biggest proponents of the single market" for holding back something positive to the single market, there is indeed quite a high chance that he refers to the UK and Germany.<br /><br />Apart from that, I don't wish to be catty towards the IPKat team and the ill AmeriKat in particular, but it's a bit rich to complain now about the Council giving too much attention to the subject of the seat, when it is exactly what the IPKat has done for the last few weeks...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52986901580298011592011-12-06T02:46:53.545+00:002011-12-06T02:46:53.545+00:00The Commissioner is referring to two Member States...The Commissioner is referring to two Member States, not one. Since France is not that interested in the internal market (not in a positive way, anyway), I assume that these states are Germany and the UK. <br /><br />Having followed many EU decision-making processes in the past, I suggest that any attempt to influence the content of the texts in the next few weeks should focus: a) on trying to influence some key actors - ie the EPP group of MEPs, and/or a governing party in the national parliament of a participating Member State, and/or a lobby group like Business Europe; b) suggest a limited number of key changes to the text; c) pitch the argument in line with the objectives of the key actors - ie the suggested changes are necessary to further reduce costs and legal certainty, enhancing innovation and job creation; and d) take great care over the tone and content of the argument. Slagging off the judges of the Court of Justice is just not going to work - since the members of the EP's legal affairs committee actually quite like the Court. They are also probably aware that judgments of the Court come less than 18 months after a reference - not 'years' later. Hyperbole does not help. Better to focus on the argument that moving Arts. 6-8 of the Reg. will cut costs by reducing unnecessary litigation and delay and thereby contribute to the success of the system. Arguing that 'the industry destroyed the 2003 deal, we can destroy this one too', might just cause ministers and MEPs to think 'Well, who the hell elected YOU?'. Better to point out that businesses will have alternatives to applying for unitary or even European patents, so it is best to devise a system that as many of them want to participate in. It would be crucial to bring in a group like Business Europe to make this argument. (They seem to have no recent press release or policy paper on the issue, not since June). Accusing the policy-makers of being rude, sneaky, etc. is not going to be productive. Best to start by praising (but a little faintly) their efforts so far. And there is no point pushing the line that this is rushed and much more debate is needed - as I have said, the policy-makers at EU level can see how many years have already been taken in negotiations over an EU patent, and clearly want to bring the whole discussion to a close. In short, that line of argument is likely to be counter-productive. Better to argue that the few necessary amendments to make the scheme much better and workable can be integrated now, with no delay necessary in the overall project; and if these amendments are not integrated now, they will be a much longer delay down the line before the system can be fully successful.Steve Peersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91925306868016739132011-12-06T00:44:59.375+00:002011-12-06T00:44:59.375+00:00Priced competitively with a US patent. Great! Engl...Priced competitively with a US patent. Great! English and no translations and renewal fees paid once in a blue moon.<br /><br />Patent attorneys can increase their hourly rates too so as to divert some of those savings into their 'children's inheritance funds'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13137090003281736512011-12-06T00:14:32.923+00:002011-12-06T00:14:32.923+00:00Again, thanks and well done.
Looks like the UK is...Again, thanks and well done.<br /><br />Looks like the UK isn't the choice for the "symbolic" central court. Why do I say that?<br /><br />"they are of course the first ones to defend the single market"<br /><br />I don't know any country other than the UK that harps on about a single market over and above any other aspect of the 'Union'.<br /><br />Which leads me to guess that Germany has been chosen, because after today's events outside of the IP world, I don't see France giving Germany everything they ask for including their kitchen sinks.<br /><br />Can we have a poll on this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com