[HN Gopher] Germany will violate international agreements with U...
___________________________________________________________________
Germany will violate international agreements with Unitary Patent,
says FFII
Author : zoobab
Score : 362 points
Date : 2020-09-17 12:14 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ffii.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ffii.org)
| ta20200917 wrote:
| Github and other OpenSource hosting sites should pretty much
| invalidate any possible software patent claim via prior art,
| right ?
| aagd wrote:
| These patents might open the doors for legal battles that small
| companies might just not have the resources for. They're a
| perfect tool for trolls and bullies.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| You don't need much in the way of resources to invalidate a
| patent. Proof of prior use, or published prior disclosure.
| The measure of proof being balance-of-probabilities.
|
| If you have that you're immune, show up with your print out,
| you get costs.
|
| If you lose you might have to, for example, hand over
| profits.
|
| The flipside is that small companies can use patents to
| prevent unlicensed exploitation of their own inventions.
|
| _This is my personal view and does not relate to my
| employment._
| zoobab wrote:
| In the case of the UPC, the court fees to invalidate a
| patent are already at 20K EUR. Not to mention the
| additional lawyers fees.
| clusterfish wrote:
| That is absolutely not the case, at least in the US. The
| people who have actually been frivolously sued and managed
| to invalidate the patents say differently: it takes several
| years and millions of dollars to invalidate just a few
| claims in the patent despite ample evidence. Look up the
| case against Laminar Research for example.
| tpetry wrote:
| As a german i am quite sure they will ratify software patents.
| The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely no
| understanding what they are doing and that they open the box of
| pandora.
|
| There is currently almost no invest money in european startups,
| and if everyone of these startups is liable for bogus software
| patents they will have absolutely no chance on getting big.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Does the government think that if they had software patents
| they could get a Facebook too?
| LockAndLol wrote:
| They don't think, they get paid and that's all they want to
| continue. It doesn't matter which "Facebook" it comes from.
| adventured wrote:
| > Does the government think that if they had software patents
| they could get a Facebook too?
|
| It'd be an amusing thought, given Facebook's success was
| particularly aided by patents not getting in their way and
| they've very rarely utilized patents to go after other
| companies (they pursued BlackBerry in 2018 after BlackBerry
| first filed a patent lawsuit against them).
|
| I don't think the so called Six Degrees patent [1] for
| example was ever ultimately used to harm any companies, with
| Reid Hoffman and Mark Pincus choosing not to try to use it
| against Facebook or any other networks (Twitter, Snapchat,
| etc). Their various investing activities into some of those
| companies certainly may have played a role in that restraint
| (with Zynga being heavily dependent on Facebook for much of
| its history also).
|
| [1a] https://patents.google.com/patent/US6175831B1/en
|
| [1b] https://www.cnet.com/news/investors-snub-friendster-in-
| paten...
|
| [1c] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/who-owns-
| facebooks-mos...
| tssva wrote:
| I don't like software patents but I have a hard time buying
| that it will limit investment further. It hasn't significantly
| done so in the US where software patents have long existed. I
| imagine it may spur investment because investors see software
| patents as protecting their investments in startups from both
| other startups and established companies.
|
| Edited to correct a typo kindly pointed out by a comment below.
| jaggirs wrote:
| I think patents (and especially software patents) cause more
| problems than they are worth. The most valuable asset in an
| economy is entrepreneurship and creativity, which often comes
| in the form of an individual making something amazing in his
| 'garage'. Patents do not help the lone genious in any shape
| or form, in fact it is already a very bad idea to worry about
| patenting your idea early on, because the effort and money it
| will take to do so will detract from the invention itself.
| For the lone inventor, this means he essentially just has to
| take a gamble and hope no one has patented his idea. And if
| someone sues him, he is done, his invention gone with him
| (which was valuable even if it already existed).
|
| Patents do somewhat work in the 'corporate' world, where
| potential inventions require a quantifiable capital
| investment that would obviously not be worth it in the
| absence of patent law (like antibiotics). But even then,
| companies often choose to keep the invention a secret if
| possible.
|
| Software, generally is not like that, capital investment
| required is only quantifiable for 'big' applications, that do
| not require much creativity but simply a lot of work to
| create. And these applications are actually not the sort of
| thing that is patentable.
|
| I think the reason patents are generally accepted is the
| 'righteus' notion that if someone invents something, he owns
| it and it cannot be stolen from him. But this notion is
| achterhaald, what if two people invent something at the same
| time? What someone invented the same thing a few years later,
| but actually succeeds in bringing it to market, unlike the
| first inventor?
| searchableguy wrote:
| Patents in other industries negatively affected innovation
| for decades. 3d printers are a prime example where recently
| expired patents resulted in real progress.
|
| Those patents will affect open source which no other industry
| has adopted to the extent software has. Even hardware is
| being open sourced now as a cultural influence.
|
| Can you point me to any other industry where small teams or
| individuals can build and learn the same cutting edge tech
| used at big companies without a big fat license and accepting
| legal jargon? Is lack of that a bad thing for the society as
| a whole? No idea is in isolation so it doesn't make sense to
| give exclusive rights to a single entity.
|
| Do you wanna fight Oracle? Of course, you do just like
| Google.
|
| Current situation won't give you the real picture of the
| impact because many companies choose not to patent software
| when they can.
|
| Investors can also see lack of patents as reduced barrier to
| entering the market and diversify more.
| srean wrote:
| Codecs and compression are another biggie. Much code gets
| rewritten to work around scorched earth.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It is interesting that consumer 3D printers boomed after
| the major foundational patents died, but it might be an
| accident of history as well, because low cost manufacturing
| and low cost computation helped make 3D printers affordable
| for consumers.
|
| 3D printers were used by industry for many years prior to
| the expiration, esp. in aerospace and the military.
| nxpnsv wrote:
| As a coder with kids, am I a software parent?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The OP said "kindly" and you got downvoted for a joke
| #HN2020 Sorry could you only vote up once.
| regularfry wrote:
| Or has it? How would we know? In particular, if we think
| conceptually software patents could be a good thing, why do
| we think the current length of patent protection is
| appropriate?
| fluffernutter wrote:
| Patents are really the stupidest things ever.
|
| The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a
| particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason
| someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality
| should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes
| money, is because they themselves like money or think they
| can gain access to that money.
|
| Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through
| mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change,
| either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same
| same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some
| definitely do, which means that change is available to all.
|
| Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an
| idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over
| another who did not have the resources, but still arrived
| intellectually at the same conclusion.
|
| Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring
| value? What about all the things we do not do that bring
| value? Will those be protected next?
|
| If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent
| a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from
| all the greedy people.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is
| there implementation of an idea. They also require the
| submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted.
|
| USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and
| business method patents. But we in Europe have software
| patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas.
|
| _This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to
| my employment._
| nybble41 wrote:
| The implementation of an idea is a specific physical
| machine (not _class_ of machines) or an active production
| process. The moment you start talking about how _similar_
| one machine or process is to some other machine or
| process (the core of any patent infringement case) you
| 're back in the realm of ideas.
|
| It's the idea of an implementation that is patented, not
| the implementation of an idea.
|
| This is particularly obvious when it comes to software
| patents as the entire process being patented concerns the
| manipulation of abstract information, which places even
| the implementation of the idea squarely in the realm of
| ideas. Even if that patent office requires the software
| to be "embodied" in some general-purpose computer before
| granting the patent, the patent covers the abstract data-
| manipulation algorithms even when they are reimplemented
| in different software running on a completely different
| kind of computer--which puts the lie to the idea that
| this "embodiment" has any relevance at all to the patent.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| With von der Leyen being president, I am pretty sure we make
| the wrong decision. Yes, some Europeans might think she looks
| sympathetic, especially those that don't know her well because
| of language barriers. That she is on the position is testament
| to the democratic dysfunction of the Union.
|
| Officially she is in a conservative party, which eastern
| European countries liked very much.
|
| If we want to take democracy seriously, we would need a common
| language or at least a common media landscape. We could just
| use US media of course. They have the opposite problem that
| everyone understands what they are saying.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| Conservative doesn't really mean much anymore on its own. CDU
| might be considered conservative by Western European
| standards, but it's liberal by Eastern European standards.
| enaaem wrote:
| A lot of political labels have a different, often opposite,
| meaning in Europe compared to the US. A liberal in Europe
| refers to classical liberalism. We also have many political
| parties, so a liberal here is not necessary a christian
| conservative. Politics is more nuanced.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >" a liberal here is not necessary a christian
| conservative" //
|
| They're pretty much opposite sides of the political
| spectrum in UK. Where are they anything other than that?
| vinay427 wrote:
| Did you reply to the right comment? What do US political
| designations have to do with European and EU politics? In
| any case, "a lot of political labels" implies several,
| and I'm not sure there are more than one or two that fit
| this description.
| sangnoir wrote:
| GP had cast "conservative" and "liberal" as mutually
| exclusive descriptions of the political spectrum: parent
| clarified that in Europe, those 2 terms mean the same
| thing. Mostly.
| lumost wrote:
| Are there any major pan-european parties? (that are taken
| seriously)
| chki wrote:
| Volt comes to mind but they are relatively new and only
| have one parliamentarian in the EP
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt_Europa?wprov=sfla1
| antientropic wrote:
| Sort of:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party
|
| However they're primarily just groupings of like-minded
| national parties.
| [deleted]
| david_arcos wrote:
| There is one: https://european-pirateparty.eu
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| > that are taken seriously
| kazen44 wrote:
| the pirate party is actually seen as a serious political
| party in both european aswell as local/national politics.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| That's true. I was half joking because public opinion
| might differ.
| cabalamat wrote:
| The Pirates came 3rd in Czechia with 14% of the vote last
| year.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_el
| ect...
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| I guess it depends on your definition of "political
| party".
|
| The EU has what's called a "political party at European
| level", there are 10 of these registered and a few more
| that don't meet the criteria to register.[0]
|
| Most of these parties - and in particular the biggest
| two[1][2] - don't allow individuals to become members.
|
| Instead their members are political parties at national
| and regional parties that already exist in the member
| states.
|
| One or two of the other parties are built around member
| states' parties, but also offer individual membership.
| The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE;
| the third-largest party) is one that does.[3]
|
| There are a few more parties that are active but don't
| meet the criteria to register.
|
| The Pirate Party[4], already mentioned by others, is one,
| but that too is a party-of-parties.
|
| Volt Europa[5] is probably the only serious attempt at
| creating Europarty that is comprised predominantly of
| individuals, although even they allow for national-level
| parties as members in their statutes.
|
| [0] Regulation 1141/2014 [6] lays down the requirements.
| Amongst the details of the legal restrictions that have
| to be adhered to is the requirement to have elected
| representatives, or achieve 3% in European Parliament
| elections, in at least 1/4 of the member states.
|
| [1] The European People's Party (EPP), this is the party
| of both the current Commission President and Merkel:
| https://www.epp.eu/
|
| [2] The Party of European Socialists:
| https://www.pes.eu/en/
|
| [3] https://www.aldeparty.eu/
|
| [4] https://european-pirateparty.eu/
|
| [5] https://www.volteuropa.org/
|
| [6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
| iterativ wrote:
| They want more or less government spending ? They accept
| that the structure of the family will change ? Example,
| families with more than two parents (that is a real
| possibility due to overpopulation). They want less or more
| police ? Reform the prison system (even dissolve it), maybe
| ? What are their views on immigration ? Multiculturalism ?
| Should we tax the wealthy more or less ?
|
| Of course, there are different political ideologies. It's
| not just a popularity contest.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > "They accept that the structure of the family will
| change ? Example, families with more than two parents
| (that is a real possibility due to overpopulation)"
|
| What does this mean? How is alleged population related to
| family structure and sexual relations?
| Perseids wrote:
| I think grandparent was alluding to a separation of the
| two concepts of sexual relations and family structure:
| (Two or more) People can decide to bring up a child
| together without being in a romantic/sexual relationship.
| (Two or more) People can be in a romantic and/or sexual
| relationship without sharing responsibility of a child of
| one of the partners. Under this prerequisite, a family is
| any close social connection surrounding children (and the
| closeness and type of closeness being the linchpin of
| whether the term applies - not every flat share is a
| family for instance).
|
| Regarding overpopulation: One motivation that I've heard
| quite often is that one of the most effective ways to
| reduce your carbon footprint is to have one child less.
| This is always presented with the asterisk that this is
| of course a very personal decision and there is the
| understanding that this is not a standard under which you
| will be measured. Still, if you're just looking at the
| numbers, that's what you get. Sharing parentage with more
| than two people is an alluring way to achieve the same
| result, especially as it means you will retain more of
| your personal time when child care is shouldered by three
| (or more) people.
| thefounder wrote:
| >> Example, families with more than two parents (that is
| a real possibility due to overpopulation)"
|
| For some reasons I thought Europe has an aging population
| issue and demographic decline not overpopulation.
|
| >> families with more than two parents
|
| I never heard of this unless you consider divorced
| people.
| Perseids wrote:
| >> families with more than two parents
|
| > I never heard of this unless you consider divorced
| people.
|
| Look for articles concerning co-parenting, that's where
| its most often discussed. Wikipedia: "Co-parenting is an
| enterprise undertaken by two or more adults who together
| take on the socialization, care, and upbringing of
| children for whom they share equal responsibility[1] Co-
| parents may include a variety of configurations,
| including a mother and a father, two mothers, two
| fathers, a parent with an adult sibling or grandparent,
| or a parent and another adult relative. The co-parent
| relationship differs from an intimate relationship
| between adults in that it focuses solely on the child."
|
| The other typical configuration would be in polyamorous
| relationships, when more than two of the partners decide
| to take responsibility of the child. Granted "typical" is
| a bit of a difficult word when we're talking about niche
| concepts. Most of my friends and coworkers have never
| heard about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse
| and sometimes complex family-alike structures, unless
| they concern failed relationships (see divorces). Which
| is kind of a bummer, that only failure in previous
| relationships motivates them to experiment with other
| concepts.
| thefounder wrote:
| >> Most of my friends and coworkers have never heard
| about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse and
| sometimes complex family-alike structures.
|
| I don't think it's worth to mangle obscure/exotic issues
| with mainstream subjects (overpopulation).
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > CDU might be considered conservative by Western European
| standards, but it's liberal by Eastern European standards.
|
| Which is mostly a result of Eastern European countries
| turning outright fascist (Hungary) or religious-
| authoritarian (Poland), it's a classic game of shifting
| goalposts.
|
| CDU also was modernized by Merkel after the right-wing
| conservatives got booted off/sidetracked in the early '00s
| following a massive donation / tax scandal ("Schreiber-
| Spendenaffare") and so the CDU still enjoyed wide
| popularity as a result, while the Eastern European
| conservatives never had that push.
| krageon wrote:
| That's more a reflection on how incredibly broken Eastern
| Europe is. Definitely not a stick to measure anything by.
| Just like how we do not measure political leaning by US
| standards (spoiler alert: everything is left wing).
| 9HZZRfNlpR wrote:
| Social issues are definetly not, every single country in
| Europe would cringe on Californian liberals and think
| they were high on something. Don't agree with that what
| so all.
| [deleted]
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Hauptsache Haare schon...ah Fonfrisur:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3cytC5i9k4
| secondcoming wrote:
| It only became apparent to me yesterday on another forum how
| much central Europeans, especially Germans, seem to quite
| dislike von der Leyen!
| mtgx wrote:
| She only became president because Merkel forced the issue.
|
| I think Frans Timmermans (an excellent option!) had a
| chance to win it before that, as well as Vestager (the
| antitrust champion in the previous EC). They gave Vestager
| the VP job to pacify her and her allies.
|
| Also, somehow, Vera Jourova, which has been absolutely
| terrible in her job in the previous EC, especially with the
| terrible Privacy Shield she negotiated with the US gov
| (which has now been invalidated - again - by the CJEU) got
| the VP role, too, in the new EC.
|
| Germans need to get rid of Merkel already. She's been
| terrible in the past 2 mandates, even doing stuff like
| protecting the coal industry as as well the diesel/gasoline
| car industry against new EU pollution norms. She also
| continued to push for new mass surveillance laws, even as
| the previous ones were being declared unconstitutional by
| the German courts.
|
| I'm almost convinced the only reason she won again last
| time was because the US/global media kept propping her up
| as the "world's savior against Trump" - whatever that
| means. So I'm sure that had an effect at home, too,
| possibly giving her the edge. I know she was starting to be
| hated due to the all the local immigration issues prior to
| that.
| rusticpenn wrote:
| She was pushed out, so that she cannot succeed Merkel.
| She was promoted out of her target job.
| simcup wrote:
| Merkel was reelected because there was no feasible
| Alternative. She is a good politican with proper
| experience and Connections especially on the
| international stage, But her politics is as shit AS the
| rest. One of the reasons why right wing parties are on
| the up. Think of her as the equivalent to biden. The only
| thing she has going is that one can assume with certainty
| she is not gonna fuck shit up so hard, but there are
| certainly better ways. Fun fact: merkel actually
| announced she would not be up for re-election in 2021.
| Semaphor wrote:
| She did a lot of dumb shit while we still had her in
| Germany.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Not a fan of her, but can you name 10 things ("lot of")
| that are "dumb shit" that she did?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| She did not "accidentally" erase her phone, it was
| someone else. The one she erased was not accidentally but
| on purpose (when there were no laws or guidance I erased
| also my phones before I got them back to my former
| employer, so we differe here on what "dumb shit" is).
|
| So we have two, black lists for websites and spending
| millions on consultants while choosing Accenture and
| McKinsey instead of some other charlatans. The problem
| here is obviously not how the companies were chosen but
| that millions were given to consulting companies with no
| clue. I might add "throwing away a rather good gun" -
| others would debate this. So we might have three. Lots
| of? And I'd only really consider black lists as "dumb
| shit" but YMMV.
|
| But we may vary on "lots of". If someone says "I have
| lots of beer at home" I would be rather dissapointed if
| in the end it were three beer (1.5 for each of us! ;-)
| Semaphor wrote:
| She said and did several dumb to horrific things during
| her Zensursula time, I do not feel like dragging all the
| quotes out of the depth of 2009/10
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| "zensursula" is quite well-known. "Accidently" erasing
| her phone and destroying files during an investigation.
| Several scandals and affairs in relation to the
| Bundeswehr.
|
| Not ten, but these immediately come to mind.
| the-dude wrote:
| Didn't she lie about her education?
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The introduction of her PhD didn't contain enough
| footnotes.
| ctas wrote:
| I don't consider her being in the conservative party the
| actual problem.
|
| In Germany she's well known for nepotism and corruptness,
| even if until this day she successfully evaded the
| punishment. Not long ago there's been a claim that her phone
| contains important evidence in support of the accusation, but
| it turned out that data on the phone had been "accidentally"
| wiped.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "In Germany she's well known for nepotism"
|
| As a German this is not "well known" to me, do you have a
| source?
|
| Until now I thought one Accenture manager was the godfather
| of a child of a deparment manager in the ministry of
| defence and Accenture got an consulting gig? I didn't know
| until now she was giving jobs to her relatives.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| I still have a "Zensursula" T-Shirt from when she wanted
| to introduce Internet censorship because "think of the
| children".
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| "Lots of"? Perhaps for coders ;-) 0,1,lotsof
| woodpanel wrote:
| Being a consultant in Germany myself I can tell you that
| during the whole "Bundeswehr Berateraffare" (an alledged
| scandal involving contracts given to consultancies when
| von der Leyen was Secretary of Defense), that at least
| all Blue Chip to Mid Cap Stock Index companies in Germany
| cringed in silence, as the 300M EUR von der Leyen
| supposedly embazzled look pathetic to the budgets these
| companies dump on consultants each year. One scrum team
| will easily go for 1.5-2M per year just for the non-
| managerial developer staff.
|
| It was a classic non-scandal, with zero convictions or
| indictments in the end, in stark contrast to the
| attention it got in the media. Not surprising considering
| how German journalists tend to dislike conservatives in
| general and how my countrymen on average lack basic
| financial education.
|
| Disclaimer: I never voted conservative (CDU) and never
| will, but as much as I don't like von der Leyen _" she's
| well known for nepotism"_ is just unfair and untrue.
| codethief wrote:
| > the 300M EUR von der Leyen supposedly embazzled look
| pathetic to the budgets these companies dump on
| consultants each year
|
| Are you saying that Blue Chip to Mid Cap Stock Index
| companies regularly spend > 1B on consulting?
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| One of her kids works for one of the big consulting
| companies she loved to hire.
|
| But more importantly, the people working for her on the
| government side were often super close to the consultants
| they hired. As the minister, she takes responsibility for
| what is going on in her ministry - and that was full of
| friends giving contracts to friends.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Thanks.
| lippel82 wrote:
| To be fair, her son worked in the silicon valley office
| in a very junior position at the time. That's very far
| removed from the German public sector consulting. She has
| seven well educated children, they have to work
| somewhere...
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| It's called networking.
| _Microft wrote:
| I'm german and it's the first time I hear someone calling
| her corrupt or nepotistic.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| I'm surprised. I thought by now it was common knowledge
| that the corruptible involving her son and other more
| distant family members has cost the taxpayers 100+
| millions.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| I've got no idea about her being corrupted or not, but
| for sure citing "common knowledge" doesn't prove
| anything.
| lippel82 wrote:
| What did her son have to do with anything? And quite
| frankly, even though the optics were probably not very
| good, I don't know of any corruption on the part of
| Ursula von der Leyen that was conclusively shown.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Yeah you don't know of any, because the evidence on her
| phone was ,,accidentally" lost...
| fxtentacle wrote:
| She hired the company where her son was working using
| taxpayer money. And then that company paid commission for
| it to her son. So she indirectly paid taxpayer money to
| her son.
| jariel wrote:
| This isn't remotely an example of corruption unless there
| is a direct conflict of interest.
|
| If she hired her son directly, or as part of the team, if
| he was lobbying her, then it's a problem.
|
| But if her son worked at IBM and she, as Defence Minister
| hired IBM for some defence contract, then it's
| irrelevant.
|
| Edit: I should be clear, among the elite, specifically if
| there are central groups which exist especially within EU
| nations, and also 'bubbles' in the US i.e. Valley,
| Hollywood, NY Finance etc. it's very common for 'big
| contracts' to go to so-and-so, and as a 'favour' the so-
| and-so takes on 'sufficiently credentialed son/daughter'.
| For example, if you're the top Defence bureaucrat and you
| hire 'Bain & Co.' to do a procurement analysis ... well
| ... you're son with a newly minted MBA might find it much
| easier to get hired there. While this kind of 'soft
| nepotism' is arguably problematic, it's also not so bad.
| It's when the 'wife, niece and grandson of the French
| President' have 'fully paid positions in the bureaucracy'
| for which they literally do nothing, or when the PM hires
| his college buddy's law firm for a $100M boondoggle that
| it gets worse.
| alexott wrote:
| Nobody was fired for buying IBM...
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| both your examples and the parent claim that commission
| went to the son sound like textbook corruption to me!
| lippel82 wrote:
| Her son worked in the silicon valley office in a very
| junior position at the time. That's very far removed from
| the German public sector consulting. And where did you
| get that bit about commissions? I'm pretty sure that
| McKinsey doesn't pay any commissions whatsoever to junior
| consultants.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| It's called networking.
| [deleted]
| joes_hk wrote:
| Maybe you have heard of the "Berateraffaren". It's almost
| funny how they pulled it off without getting into legal
| trouble.
| _Microft wrote:
| OK, thanks. I had heard about her wiped mobilphone before
| but didn't know what the issue was about.
|
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen#Berate
| r-A...
| Roritharr wrote:
| Never heard the term "Berater-Affare"?
| usr1106 wrote:
| I guess nobody who does not speak German can understand
| or use such term. I'd translate it with consultantgate,
| but then I am not a native speaker of English. I don't
| think European media is integrated enough that there
| would be a term well understood in all EU countries.
| zepearl wrote:
| _Initially, 10 million euros were estimated for the
| repair work. During the work that had started, further
| damage was found in the Elsflether shipyard in January
| 2016, whereupon a construction freeze was imposed in
| October 2016 and an economic feasibility study was
| instructed. On January 26, 2017, Defense Minister Ursula
| von der Leyen finally decided to continue the repair
| work, the cost of which has now been estimated at 75
| million euros. According to the shipyard in March 2018,
| the costs could rise to 135 million euros and the
| overhaul could take until mid-2019. [8th]_
|
| https://translate.google.com/translate?um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=e
| n&c...
| orbifold wrote:
| She did a bunch of pretty corrupt stuff while defense
| minister. She pushed for internet censorship.
| addicted wrote:
| I strongly disagree with internet censorship, but how is
| that "corrupt"?
|
| Pushing for something that may be objectively terrible
| and is agreed by everybody is objectively terrible, may
| be terrible, but it is still not corrupt.
|
| Words have meanings, and for that to be corrupt it would
| also require that the person pushing for it was doing so
| not because they believed it was the right thing to do,
| but because they were doing it for nefarious reasons such
| as having been bribed, or only because it would
| personally enrich themselves.
| ginko wrote:
| >Yes, some Europeans might think she looks sympathetic
|
| Are we talking about the same Ursula von der Leyen?
| trumpeta wrote:
| I found her sympathetic based on her statements about
| protection of democratic values in Poland and standing up
| for oppressed minorities in Asia. I haven't yet seen her
| bad side I guess.
| zoobab wrote:
| The violation of the Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary is
| exactly what it is about here. We have a rogue
| administration (the EPO) which cannot be brought to
| court:
|
| "4. UPCA is violating the "rule of law" (TFEU Art2), the
| EPO cannot be brought to court for maladministration"
| jariel wrote:
| "That she is on the position is testament to the democratic
| dysfunction of the Union."
|
| ???
|
| That she _has_ her position is the most glaring evidence of
| 'democratic dysfunction'.
|
| Nobody voted for her, she was unknown before the election.
| The very few people that voted in the EU elected voted for
| something else, after the election 'the true powers' decided
| to push the ostensible candidate aside, and behind closed
| doors without input from elected MEPs, Von der Leyen was
| chosen from relative obscurity (at least outside of Germany)
| - foisted on top to 500 Million electors, almost none of whom
| have ever even heard of her.
|
| She was not vetted, she did no debates, there was no public
| coverage, there were no speeches, there was no published
| platform, there was no campaign agenda.
|
| Just: "Here is your new leader, that you have never heard of
| , that you have just elected".
|
| This is not democracy.
|
| So perhaps if there were more transparency, or even some of
| it, you would have been able to vet her, and actually vote
| for or against her.
| ohthehugemanate wrote:
| The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic
| government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes takes
| on responsibilities like a government.
|
| This dual identity has been a boon in some political
| situations in the past, but it is also a serious liability.
| Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a treaty
| organization, but she is much more political than some
| technocrat. There are factions that like it each way, and
| her job is to play both ends against the middle.
|
| You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head of
| a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the leader
| of the (de facto) government!
|
| It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational
| organization in Europe which IS a democratic government.
| Seems like it would be a natural fit for the EU to be that
| organization... and it looks like it is headed in that
| direction. That means it's our role as citizens to push for
| more democratic behavior at every turn.
| kazen44 wrote:
| > The thing about the EU is, it's not a democratic
| government. It's atreaty organization that sometimes
| takes on responsibilities like a government.
|
| what? This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about
| how the EU and it's actual bodies work. i can vote for EU
| elections and representatives in the european parlement.
| Also the european commision and the council consist of
| either parties elected in the national elections, or
| national leaders themselves. Also, the european parlement
| uses quantitative representation, which means smaller
| nations have a larger say compared to larger ones.
|
| >This dual identity has been a boon in some political
| situations in the past, but it is also a serious
| liability. Von der Leyen got the job in a usual way for a
| treaty organization, but she is much more political than
| some technocrat. There are factions that like it each
| way, and her job is to play both ends against the middle.
|
| What dual identity? The european community has had a
| parlement since the 70's, and the european project has
| been a political union since it's very beginning in the
| 50's. You seem to assume that van der leyen has vast
| political power on her own, but the EU is far to
| decentralized for that. The EU is is a complex political
| system because it is highly decentralised. (which in
| terms is happening because all it's members are
| sovereign).
|
| >You don't need a democratic mandate to appoint the head
| of a civil service. You definitely do when choosing the
| leader of the (de facto) government!
|
| This democratic process exists, as explained above. not
| having direct representation is not the issue here. The
| way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as what
| happens in most if not all EU member states. (with the
| exception of mainly the UK).
| ohthehugemanate wrote:
| First of all, thank you for phrasing in such a
| constructive way with "seems to be". I really appreciate
| that about this community.
|
| I'll try to clarify:
|
| The EU in many ways _does_ operate like a government, at
| least like a confederacy. It has a legislative process, a
| directly elected parliament, and a president. We get
| "state of the union" addresses, for crying out loud!
|
| But its founding mission was as an independent third
| party to oversee coal and steal production. That kind of
| "referee" role between member states is central to how it
| is designed, and to much of its action.
|
| Some notable dissimilarities to a democratic government:
|
| - The EU has no constitution; it has treaties. - The EU
| has no sovereignty; limited powers flow upwards from
| individual member states. - The EU may only determine
| matters collectively which _need_ to be determined
| collectively (principle of subsidiarity) - The only
| directly elected part of the EU (the EU Parliament) may
| not propose legislation. It gets to amend, improve, and
| approve /reject legislation proposed by the (unelected)
| EU Commission, to implement policy set by the European
| Council and its (unelected) president. - The "supreme
| executive" European Council is simply all the national
| leaders with an appointed head. That's the only source
| for new policy and leadership decisions. - The EU
| Commission - the partner body to the EU parliament, is a
| set of appointees from the EU Council, approved/rejected
| as a group by the parliament.
|
| The idea behind the setup is to make it easier to propose
| and ratify multi-lateral treaties with many sides and
| fixed membership. The directly elected Parliament is a
| sanity check, not a source of legislation.
|
| To use the US system as analogy because I can assume
| broad familiarity with it: - the executive branch is all
| the state governors. They appoint the President. - the
| senate is made of appointees from the executive branch,
| approved as a group by the congress. - the house of
| representatives is directly elected, and can only modify,
| approve, or reject legislation proposed by the senate.
|
| It is not a controversial opinion to say it is a hybrid
| system. In fact, from the Wikipedia page on the EU:
|
| "The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranational
| and intergovernmental decision-making,[132][133] and
| according to the principles of conferral (which says that
| it should act only within the limits of the competences
| conferred on it by the treaties) and of subsidiarity
| (which says that it should act only where an objective
| cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states
| acting alone)."
|
| "Constitutionally, the EU bears some resemblance to both
| a confederation and a federation, but has not formally
| defined itself as either... It is more integrated than a
| traditional confederation of states because the general
| level of government widely employs qualified majority
| voting in some decision-making among the member states...
| It is less integrated than a federal state because it is
| not a state in its own right."
|
| Also, as evidenced by some of the other responses to my
| comment, my statement that we need a central political
| body _is_ a controversial opinion.
|
| Hope this helps. Thanks for the excuse for a Wikipedia
| dive! You may also be interested in this recent Economist
| article about some of the problems of the dichotomy:
| https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/09/03/the-
| contradictio...
| jariel wrote:
| "This opinion seems to be highly uninformed about how the
| EU and it's actual bodies work."
|
| " the european commision and the council consist of
| either parties elected in the national elections"
|
| For lambasting others as uninformed, you should check
| your facts first. The EU Commission is _not_ made up of
| elected officials, moreover, the EU has no obligation
| whatsoever to follow the results of parliamentary
| elections.
|
| The 'proportional' makeup of the assembly is irrelevant
| if they are mostly powerless - by far the most powerless
| legislative assembly in the free world.
|
| " The way of elections in the EU is roughly the same as
| what happens in most if not all EU member states"
|
| This is really not true. The leaders of various parties,
| their platforms etc. are all well known during the course
| of EU member state elections, moreover, EU member state
| legislative bodies have the power to sanction, remove the
| executive, and of course to actually legislate.
|
| Edit: EU members states have some of the best and most
| representative democracies in the world, it's such a
| blatant contrast at the EU level, it's hard to forgive
| people for not seeing why things are the way they are.
| jariel wrote:
| "It is increasingly clear that we need a supranational
| organization in Europe which IS a democratic government."
|
| I don't think that's clear at all.
|
| One could very much make the argument that it doesn't
| need 'governance' it needs 'coordination' which are very
| different things.
|
| I feel the vast majority of the most important things
| could be achieved mostly by treaty and that everyone
| could 'have their cake and eat it' which is to say have
| fully sovereign states and work together.
|
| I think there's quite a lot of a) ideology in the US of
| Europe b) it's the natural 'power creep' of any
| institution and c) the business class love to be able to
| 'skip democracy' and so do the 'socialist' types - both
| of whom kind of work in a weird kind of tolerance of one
| another, with I think the business class mostly in
| charge.
|
| In particular, the hugely vague mandates on 'Human
| Rights' are the biggest coup, though the least obvious.
| They basically give a 'carte blanche' to the EU courts to
| rule as they see fit, interpreting some basic, bland text
| to mean whatever they want it to mean.
|
| Since the EU courts often decide on their own
| jurisdiction ... it results in a huge concentration of
| legal power.
|
| It's a Judicial takeover.
|
| Something similar happened in Canada - not exactly on
| purpose - but when Trudeau Sr. introduced a new
| Constitution into Canada in the early 1980's - it was a
| 'nice modern document' but obviously vague. Since then,
| the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down innumerable
| old laws, new laws, they do it all the time, they even
| 'change their minds' on things like terminal care and
| suicide. Because of the vague wording, 'the world's top
| legal scholars and lawyers' have no clue what legislation
| is legal or not, it's just a matter of what our 'Tribal
| Council of Unelected Elders' decide to do. It's resulted
| in 'Law by Judicial Fiat' for a wide array of issues -
| all of the most important ones (identity, rights,
| marriage, abortion). Canadians, elected officials,
| politicians, the Prime Minister have little say in the
| matter ... except for this weird clause someone can
| effect which basically says a 'law is not bound by the
| constitution' - which is crazy in of itself.
|
| The 'Human Rights' mandates of the EU are controversial
| for this reason: obviously, they are humane and positive
| i.e. a 'good thing' - but many people oppose them on the
| legal problems the effectively create. These people are
| easily lambasted in the press as 'anti human rights'
| which is of course completely wrong.
|
| Europeans are quite smart, the lack of understanding of
| these things is really quite bothersome. People just seem
| to be happy to do whatever the elite tell them to do.
| nsajko wrote:
| Any law will, at some point at least, become to vague. On
| the other hand, I too have the perception that bills are
| often carelessly written and too vague[0], but I think
| your understanding of jurisprudence or what a judge's job
| should be is not realistic. The system is not meant to be
| mechanical.
|
| I think that for meaningful discussion to be possible,
| you would have to provide a much more specific, concrete
| example; but that of course runs the risk of being beyond
| the understanding of us non-lawyers.
|
| [0] Somebody on HN opined that this is because most
| politicians are lawyers, and they have an interest in
| preserving/increasing job opportunities for lawyers, or
| something like that. I wish I could find the comment.
| Joeri wrote:
| Nonsense. Von der leyen was proposed by the council,
| consisting of representatives from every country, and by
| extension representative for the voters in every country.
| She was then confirmed by a majority of the EU parliament,
| which is directly elected by the citizens. Every EU citizen
| voted in those elections, or had the opportunity to. So, if
| only a "very few" voted that is on them. If their elected
| representatives did things they didn't like (like
| confirming von der leyen), that is on them also, in the
| next parliamentary elections.
|
| What you are complaining about is that she was elected by
| newly elected representatives, but not directly elected by
| citizens. I find this to be hairsplitting and meaningless
| in a context of representative democracy.
| jariel wrote:
| Far from 'hairsplitting and meaningless' the issue is at
| the very crux of 'democracy'.
|
| That almost nobody voted in the election, that nobody
| knew who the leader - or the platform - was going to be,
| and that she was absolutely chosen after the fact, by
| unelected leaders, that she cannot be sanctioned or
| replaced, and that elected MEPs cannot propose
| legislation - is _fundamental_ to the nature of
| democracy.
|
| Even in _proper_ democracies, particularly in
| Parliamentary systems, even the _budget_ requires
| approval without which the government falls and
| _elections_ are called. Why? Because the proposition of
| budgets necessitate popular sanction. Parliament - and
| even legislative assemblies can dissolve government if
| necessary.
|
| Ursula von der Leyen has unambiguously the _least_
| democratic legitimacy of any leader in the free world, by
| far.
|
| The fact that the EU was purposefully designed this way -
| in the very face of very healthy democratic institutions
| i.e. Switzerland, UK, Germany - implies the lack of
| democracy was very much 'by design'.
|
| It's an existential issue.
| kazen44 wrote:
| also, in european politics, direct election of officials
| rarely happens. (unlike in american politics).
|
| People usually vote for parties and the persons within
| them, not an individual.
| nsajko wrote:
| You're oversimplifying to an absurd degree.
|
| Consider Socialist Yugoslavia, the main difference
| between its electoral system and those of non-communist
| states was the amount of indirection involved.
|
| Also, you ignored the second half of jariel's comment.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| The president of the comission is basically a civil service
| job.
| jariel wrote:
| I get what you mean, but it's a civil service with
| constitutional powers :). And it's designed to 'one day'
| be 'Presidential'.
|
| Von der Leyen, in her first speech talked about her want
| to create the 'United States of Europe'. Not only does
| this hint at the Presidential nature of the role, but
| also points out the problematic issue with 'lack of
| democracy' in that voters were told _after the election_
| that their leader has a plan for 'existential
| transformation'. This is not what a bureaucrat does.
|
| As a funny example: imagine waking up in Nov. 2016 and
| being told that the 'US state delegates' had _not_
| actually decided to go with 'Mitt Romney', the official
| candidate, but they 'changed their minds' and went with
| some 'outsider' from New York named 'Donald Trump'.
|
| All of that said - the EU is actually more thoughtful
| about tech legislation than the US gov for sure - that
| said, the EU is for the most part making rules that
| ostensibly 'protect' them from outside parties, it would
| be a different story if MS, FB and G were HQ'd in London,
| Antwerp and Lisbon.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by
| the European parliament.
|
| This is what 'United States of Europe' means. The EU has
| been on a course to more democracy and more power for the
| parliament (e.g. Treaty of Lisbon), so I'm not sure why
| people assume this stops, argue that it is not happening
| or argue that it is reversing - when it is not - e.g. see
| GDPR.
| jariel wrote:
| This is essentially not true and misunderstanding of why
| the EU exists in the first place.
|
| "When 'one day' it's presedential it will be voted for by
| the European parliament."
|
| And who will propose and design the legislation?
|
| The Executive!
|
| Definitely not elected MEPs, because they are barred from
| doing so!
|
| MEP's, in 2020 remain forbidden from initiating or
| enacting legislation. They have the bare minimum power to
| legitimize the institution as 'democratic'.
|
| The EU is the only 'Constitutional Democratic' entity in
| the modern world wherein legislation is created and
| controlled at the executive level.
|
| You might technically be correct in asserting that the
| MEPs have 'more power' after the Lisbon treaty, very
| little has changed, and there is no reason for them to
| change it.
|
| Not until the Treaty of Lisbon were elected MEPs even
| required to be _consulted_ (!!) for the selection of the
| executive! Constitutionally they were irrelevant. Only
| since the Lisbon treaty do MEPs technically have to be
| consulted, and even then, it 's merely 'consultation'.
| It's not binding.
|
| Never in the history of the world has power been given to
| the people unless they have basically 'forced' it, by
| using one lever of power or another.
|
| The EU is very well designed by the elite to avoid
| populism and 'interference' by organized or populist
| plebes.
|
| It's the perfect mechanism to have control and enact
| legislation with minimum of oversight, minimum of media
| coverage, minimum of procedural problems from the plebes.
|
| The elite can argue, but only among themselves.
|
| The EU has _negative_ incentive to add more democratic
| oversight, because in their view, it just adds more
| problems and risk to the situation - god forbid a
| 'Donald Trump' should be elected in Europe.
|
| The only way voters will get more power is if they take
| it, either through MEP insurrection, or, one or two state
| powers have some kind of reason to push for it. I don't
| think either of these cases is on the table, I can't even
| imagine a scenario will happen.
|
| So if 'the entire history of civilization' is a guide,
| there will be _net less_ democracy in Europe, as they
| give very little power to MEPs, and move more powers away
| from national assemblies towards the EU, where unelected
| bureaucrats and members of the inner circle can do 'what
| they think is best'.
|
| And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
|
| As for GDPR, yes, it was nice that MEPs could put up a
| fuss and have some parts of legislation changed, but they
| were not the shepherds of this legislation by any means,
| it was written and controlled 'from above' at all times.
|
| FYI here is the original draft from 2012 [1]
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121203024154/http://ec.
| europa....
| zoobab wrote:
| On EU democracy, maybe you need to write another chapter
| about the Council of Ministers.
|
| In this particular file of the UPCA, Ministers have a
| ___direct_ __conflict of interests, as their ministries
| would get money for the renewal fees of the Unitary
| Patent.
| blibble wrote:
| there's also the important point that once a law is
| passed, it's impossible for your elected representatives
| to remove it or even amend it
|
| the entire project is about centralising executive power,
| which necessitates removing it from national legislatures
| zoobab wrote:
| Yes, it will be impossible to change. It will prevent
| states from issuing national clarifications to patent law
| on software patents for example. And the European
| Parliament won't be the legislator on patent law, as the
| EU is not member of the EPC.
| blibble wrote:
| the 2019 election had proper televised political debates
| amongst the leaders of the euro parties
|
| the council then ignored that completely and installed
| their own choice
| addicted wrote:
| That sounds like, parliamentary democracy?
|
| I mean, how many regular people voted for Boris Johnson as
| PM, for example. The answer is exactly 0.
|
| That's just how parliamentary democracy works.
| jariel wrote:
| No it's not 'like a parliamentary democracy' at all - the
| only 'resemblance' is that that there is some degree of
| 'representation'.
|
| But the similarities end there.
|
| You've actually provided a specific example - the most
| recent UK election, which highlights even further the
| lack of democracy in the EU, which is a 'confidence'
| election based on some important or existential issue, in
| that case, Brexit.
|
| + Voters were very well informed that Boris Johnson was
| to be the PM if a specific party were elected + They were
| very aware of the general platform of the parties + They
| were even more aware that the issue at the crux of the
| election was the type of resolution towards Brexit. + UK
| elected MPs have tremendous power - demonstrated in that
| very case: previous to the election, Boris Johnson faced
| a kind of censure by Parliament several times, MPs of all
| stripes voting for and against him. + The UK MPs
| collectively introduced legislation and forced the hand
| of government on several occasions. + The government was
| threatened with dissolution on several occasions, over a
| very important issue.
|
| None of this happens in the EU, by design.
|
| The EU is not a 'representative democracy' rather, it's a
| political entity which governs largely unto it's own
| devices - but in which some actions must have it's
| actions approved by elected officials.
| xamolxix wrote:
| > That she is on the position is testament to the democratic
| dysfunction of the Union.
|
| I know almost nothing about her but my impression of the
| actual decision making in the EU is that it's fairly
| distributed (by design) and there is not a single person
| which has the power to do anything on their own. Also there
| are lots of opportunities for various stakeholders to veto
| decisions.
| jMyles wrote:
| > The very sad part is the people deciding this have absolutely
| no understanding what they are doing
|
| I'm all for Hanlon's Razor, but its application to IP, and
| especially software patents, is getting a little strained over
| the years.
| DethNinja wrote:
| How do you know they have no understanding? Perhaps they got
| shares in large software companies and just want to eliminate
| competition. It just seems like corruption to me.
| MCOfficer wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised, "free gifts" is exactly what they've
| been given from the car industry for years.
| m12k wrote:
| This was what I feared when I voted against the Unitary Patent. I
| really hope someone manages to prevent software from becoming
| patentable in Europe.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| The law itself makes sense in my opinion, but the way it was
| introduced makes the self declaration as being democratic a cheap
| farce.
|
| I doubt the EU will survive in its current state. 10 years ago
| that would have made me sad. There are enthusiasts, but not
| enough to make it work.
| normalnorm wrote:
| > I doubt the EU will survive in its current state.
|
| A lot of people desire this to be true, but that does not mean
| that it is. It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the
| wake of the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the
| Brexit fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for
| more than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible
| state -- and the worst is yet to come.
|
| The EU is not perfect by any means (what is?), but it is a
| terribly ambitious project that has been painstakingly built
| over decades. Every step of the way, someone like you was
| claiming that it was impossible, that it was surely about to
| collapse. Well, we are 27 member states strong and we are
| dealing with the economic challenged posed by COVID better than
| most of the rest of the world.
|
| If we look at objective measures, such as economic inequality,
| political polarization or civil unrest, we are perhaps forced
| to conclude that the US are closer to collapse than the EU. To
| be clear, I do not desire the collapse of the US. I think that
| that US and the EU are natural friends, in a world where they
| have much more in common than what separates them.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I don't understand how you can look at the world and honestly
| think the US is closer to collapse then the EU. Also what
| world do you live in where the EU is doing better then most
| of the world? Half the EU countries are in the top 20 deaths
| / pop.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| > Also what world do you live in where the EU is doing
| better then most of the world? Half the EU countries are in
| the top 20 deaths / pop.
|
| ...because the EU was the center of the first wave, at a
| point where the whole world was scrambling to find and
| implement appropriate mitigations.
|
| Try this chart: https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-
| chart/?areas=usa&areas=eur&are...
|
| In any case, the post you're replying to claimed that "we
| are dealing with the _economic challenge[s]_ posed by COVID
| better than most of the rest of the world. "
|
| I'm not sure why the death numbers, even if they were not
| confounded like this, would be a meaningful measure for
| that.
| nbevans wrote:
| I just read this and your comment history. You need to cut
| back on that Kool-aid.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| I wanted to write "in its current form". I don't think it
| will dissolve, but people will realize that some countries
| have different ideas about government. Especially with the
| planned addition of new countries. Many countries favor
| democracy a lot less and we are blindly expanding.
|
| Many people believe we need the union to defend our values,
| but it becomes more apparent that we might loose them on the
| way.
| disown wrote:
| > It is a particularly weird opinion to hold in the wake of
| the most recent challenge to its continuity -- the Brexit
| fiasco, with the EU having maintained a united front for more
| than 4 years, while the UK emerges out of it in a terrible
| state -- and the worst is yet to come.
|
| If would be a weird opinion to hold if the EU managed to keep
| britain. But the fact that the EU lost a major nation doesn't
| make it a weird opinion. It makes it a sensible one to hold.
| Did you think the soviet union losing warsaw pact members was
| also a sign of stability?
|
| > If we look at objective measures, such as economic
| inequality, political polarization or civil unrest, we are
| perhaps forced to conclude that the US are closer to collapse
| than the EU.
|
| No. If we lost texas or california or ny, then you might have
| a point. Also, none of what you listed actually lead to
| collapse. The US has been going strong for nearly 250 years.
| We survived the civil war without losing any territory or
| collapsing. Do you think the EU could survive the same? We
| have the same language, history, culture, currency, etc at
| this point. There is no legitimate secessionist movement
| here. There are a few in europe. Also, the EU has fault lines
| that separate people by language, history, culture, currency,
| etc.
|
| If economic inequality, political polarization or civil
| unrest lead to a collapse, then we would have collapsed a
| long time ago. The US survived the gilded age, civil war, the
| 60s, etc. The EU faced a stiff breeze and lost britain.
| Imagine what real issues would do to the EU?
|
| The problem with the EU is the lack of a strong central
| government and a sense of identity because european or eusian
| ( heck EU members don't really have a name do they? ) is
| really a meaningless designation like asian. It's too big and
| broad of a term to be sensible political identity. Like the
| soviet union. Or dare I say even the russian federation or
| china.
| kilburn wrote:
| > heck EU members don't really have a name do they?
|
| This is very funny assuming you are from the USA. What do
| you call yourselves?
| kzrdude wrote:
| The enthusiasts need to temper their dreams and expectations -
| EU is doing fine, and doesn't need to always become more
| powerful or more integrated. Especially not now, when citizens
| don't want it.
| chki wrote:
| >Especially not now, when citizens don't want it.
|
| Citation needed. While there is some anti-European sentiment
| in all member states those are almost always in the minority.
| There are a lot of people who want more integration.
| kzrdude wrote:
| One can be pro-EU and still believe in a scaled back union.
| To say something even more inside the context of my post
| that you replied to - let's posit 70% are happy with EU
| now. Does that mean that EU should integrate more? Not
| necessarily - they might not be so happy after that change.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Not enough to put it to a vote in most countries and it
| highly depends on the question.
|
| That there should be internal talks about foreign policies
| is pretty much accepted, also having common environmental
| policies.
|
| If you suggest a common welfare program, you will quickly
| find closed doors.
|
| Honestly, I think the support in general is higher with
| people not interested in politics, aside from the
| enthusiasts that already dream of a republic.
|
| Speaking of which, why call it the European Union when we
| could have called it the European Empire. Some things are
| so obvious...
| thelastname wrote:
| European Constitution fiasco is a good example.
| m12k wrote:
| Citation needed. The people pushing for more integration
| are politicians and bureaucrats, not normal people. Most of
| the EU (indeed most of the Western world) is in a
| democratic crisis - moving decision-making even further
| away from citizens by centralizing it in Brussels is only
| going to exacerbate that, leading to more anti-EU sentiment
| and more brexits.
| chki wrote:
| First Google result:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/the-
| european-u...
|
| >The people pushing for more integration are politicians
| and bureaucrats, not normal people.
|
| That's simply not true. There are multiple civil society
| organizations pushing for a closer union. People are
| voting for parties that are explicitly pro-European.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| I don't know who's right but France has some 65M people
| whereas e.g. Lithuania has 3M people. And France provides
| 15% of the EU budget whereas (say) Lithuania provides
| 0.3%. I'm not sure listing all countries on a bar chart
| as if their opinions have equal impact on the fate of the
| EU is an accurate way to illustrate the situation?
|
| Would the EU do just fine after losing the UK and a
| country like France? Would Germans still love the EU so
| much after they realize they're paying twice as much into
| the EU as the next country? Maybe you could argue it
| would, but I guess it seems far from obvious to me.
| bkor wrote:
| > Would Germans still love the EU so much after they
| realize they're paying twice as much into the EU as the
| next country?
|
| Germans took up way more monetary responsibility during
| Corona. E.g. they took various patients from Netherlands
| and paid for the care themself. Same with the financial
| crisis that was a result of Corona, Germany was happy to
| help out other countries.
|
| Now if you look at what Netherlands gains out of the EU
| (so what the EU is worth to NL) it is about 7 to 8 times
| the net payment. Limiting the net amount paid is good,
| but the focus on net payment without looking at what you
| get is quite short sighted.
|
| See e.g. UK where just paying the custom agents will cost
| an equivalent as the EU payments.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| > EU is doing fine
|
| If it is, why isn't it cracking down more seriously on, say,
| GDPR violations already? Is giving companies multiple years
| to adjust still not enough? Or does a serious enforcement of
| its laws not fall under the umbrella of doing fine (nor sure
| if pun intended)?
| yorwba wrote:
| https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ Order by fine,
| descending.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/02/dat
| a-p...
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Comparatively? Which countries are doing more to protect
| citizens from data-hungry corporations?
| bkor wrote:
| One does not follow the other. EU can be doing badly while
| GDPR is fine, GDPR can be crap while EU is doing fine, etc
|
| GDPR violations are handled per country btw. Further, GDPR
| is a regulation which EU member countries turned into law.
| krageon wrote:
| > citizens don't want it
|
| You're talking about the populist dregs of society. Let's not
| make the very american mistake of validating that rhetoric by
| considering it true.
| oaiey wrote:
| That is a very good point. Problem is that the enthusiasts
| are the young people across Europe and not exactly a
| minority. That is a 50:50 or 60:40 thing.
|
| So when you satisfy on group (good enough) you will make the
| the other half unhappy.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The old people will die off rather sooner than later, the
| problem will solve itself biologically.
|
| The real question is: will this happen fast enough to avoid
| hitting a no-way-back point in climate change?
| mamon wrote:
| In fact I think EU should take few steps back: the perfect
| state was before Lisbon treaty, when EU was basically just a
| free trade zone. Since Lisbon they try to make it a single
| country, with unified policy on international affairs,
| military, etc, which doesn't make sense.
| nix23 wrote:
| >EU was basically just a free trade zone
|
| Exactly! That's what the EU should be and nothing more.
| simias wrote:
| I mean that's the crux of the issue, is the EU just a
| liberal (in the non-american sense) free-trade zone or is
| it more that that. I personally would like it to be more,
| but I understand that it's a very controversial topic.
| rbecker wrote:
| Of all the things the EU does, unified international policy
| makes the most sense to me - only way to avoid getting
| picked off one by one.
|
| It's the attempt at unifying countries _internal_ policies
| that I don 't see the point of.
| mantas wrote:
| It would make sense, but different countries have way too
| different historical experience, cultural ties and
| business interests.
|
| Hottest examples - Russia/Belarus/Ukraine, Greece/Turkey,
| Nordstream, the whole migrants-in-Mediteranean thing and
| so on.
| bkor wrote:
| Differences in culture are addressed by endless amount
| talking, compromises, etc. Previously Europe often
| resorted to war. I highly prefer the current attempt at
| trying to keep peace.
|
| Promoting peace is listed as a goal on
| https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
| glogla wrote:
| I would say it is the only way it makes sense. The world
| now belongs to huge nations like USA, China and India. The
| only way European people can survive with their freedom
| intact is by banding together.
| kzrdude wrote:
| I think the EU has a very important role to play, like
| this, but it shouldn't be the case that we have to be an
| empire to survive - either against other big empires, or
| mega-corps, both kinds of things have a bit too much
| power. The mega-corps we can regulate, and
| (unfortunately) - a powerful EU is needed to do it in
| this state of the world.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Fascinating, this is such a hot topic which is going to be
| debated for decades. I for one think that EU needs to take
| several steps forward. I personally am for a single
| country, or how federalists like to say, United States of
| Europe.
|
| It seems to me like the "best case" scenario geopolitically
| and economically for EU.
| pbowyer wrote:
| But only in a "limited and specific" way, so that's okay [UK in-
| joke]
|
| At least we're not the only country wanting to violate
| international agreements at present
| C1sc0cat wrote:
| Well having some think tank say something and your senior legal
| establishment Is quite different.
| akerro wrote:
| >At least we're not the only country wanting to violate
| international agreements at present
|
| Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts because it
| all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different because EU is
| much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is important to
| keep food, medicine and skills flowing between borders.
|
| UK government is planning and making first successful steps
| towards breaking withdrawal agreement before it's even in
| place. So why would EU even bother continuing wasting time and
| resources in this stupid game where they won't be the losers?
| throwaways885 wrote:
| > Countries do it all the time and there are conflicts
| because it all the time everywhere. UK is slightly different
| because EU is much stronger than UK, withdrawal agreement is
| important to keep food, medicine and skills flowing between
| borders.
|
| [Citation needed.]
|
| Plus, the government's argument (today at least) is that the
| EU broke the agreement first, so it's nil and invalid.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| The EU probably will lose the same in absolute terms, but it
| will be spread over 400 million people not 60 million. So in
| terms of rational policy making the EU should want a deal as
| much as the UK, but of course in practice if the impact is
| less diffuse it's just less politically important.
| Silhouette wrote:
| European politics in 2021 will be interesting to watch.
|
| During the endless Brexit debates in the UK prior to the
| referendum itself, IIRC the more credible analysis tended
| to have the EU27 combined losing more than the UK in
| absolute economic terms, maybe even twice as much, in the
| event of a no-deal Brexit.
|
| The argument was made that the EU could afford to take that
| bigger hit anyway and was still in the stronger position in
| negotiations, because as you say even a somewhat greater
| cost would be distributed over many more people.
|
| Then the counter-argument was that the distribution of any
| costs to the EU would be far from uniform. For example, one
| member state in the EU27 was all but guaranteed a
| catastrophic outcome if there is a no-deal Brexit: Ireland.
| This is part of the reason the NI border issue was such a
| sensitive topic during the negotiations. But more
| generally, some member states are much more dependent on
| the UK than others, or more dependent than others in some
| specific area(s). Another common examples is that the
| Mediterranean tourism destinations get a huge amount of
| revenue from the Brits each summer (under normal
| circumstances at least, maybe not so much this year) and in
| certain cases this represents a significant fraction of
| their entire national economy.
|
| The EU and the Europhile leaders that most of the larger
| member states have had in recent times have been very good
| at showing a united front when it comes to Brexit, but as
| we've seen with other issues like the immigration/refugee
| situation and the pandemic, that solidarity can rapidly
| give way to realpolitik when times get tough. A lot of the
| EU27 member states are going to take a hit if we leave the
| transition period with no deal at the end of the year, and
| I wonder how well their faith in and support of the EU will
| hold up once real money and real jobs start being lost on
| both sides of the Channel.
|
| At this point, I do not expect there to be a deal, at least
| not a comprehensive one that is useful for the long term,
| by the end of this year. It won't surprise me at all if the
| cracks start appearing on the EU side soon afterwards,
| though whether they will spread as quickly and as deeply as
| those likely to form concurrently in the UK is anyone's
| guess. It also won't surprise me at all if some important
| issues that are, in theory at least, EU competences start
| to get dealt with more directly by national governments
| looking to protect their own interests. Time will tell.
| Voxoff wrote:
| Well, it happens but rarely does it happen exclusively in the
| West where there is a lot at stake. (Would be interested in
| counterexamples)
|
| International law, as an attempt to tame excesses of
| diplomacy, is something that has lifted up the West. It's
| brought order and prosperity. This move is yet another jenga
| brick taken out of the liberal West, thereby weakening the
| EU. The EU really needs to bother...
| akerro wrote:
| Just googling for:
|
| France breaks international law
| https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181017-amnesty-france-
| vi...
|
| Spain breaks international law: https://www.icj.org/spain-
| conviction-of-catalonian-leaders-v...
|
| Poland breaks international law https://www.ecre.org/human-
| rights-organisations-poland-viola...
|
| I don't think I need to search for any about USA, each of
| us remembers at least 5 from very recent history.
| chki wrote:
| The very important difference being that these countries
| did not explicitly say: "We will break international
| law". You might think that's a technicality but in
| international law that's really an important distinction.
| Voxoff wrote:
| I mean I did explicitly say the West vs the West. And
| self-determination is definitely a special case so none
| of these apply.
|
| Again, the US vs the West?
|
| I'd be surprised if its _never_ happened. But the ensuing
| uproar is part of the politics - It 's an extra hurdle
| for countries in a political maneuver. And a broadly
| positive hurdle.
| PostOnce wrote:
| That "limited and specific" thing, it's been going on a
| while... I found something funny on wikipedia the other day:
|
| Ad extirpanda (named for its Latin incipit) was a papal bull
| promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV
| which authorized in limited and defined circumstances the use
| of torture by the Inquisition as a tool for interrogation.[1]
|
| "limited and defined circumstances"
|
| It actually goes on to enumerate those defined circumstances,
| but I can guess how it turned out in practice.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Countries break international law all the time [1]. Doesn't
| make it right of course, but funny how in the UK's case it
| suddently makes headlines (no surprise really from the usual
| remainer-suspects).
|
| [1] https://www.insideover.com/politics/un-accuses-eu-of-
| violati...
| detritus wrote:
| The UK was one of the most compliant EU members.
|
| Personally I'd've preferred staying in the EU and exercising
| a little more 'flexibility' in interpreting bloc rules to
| suit our tastes, as some other EU states are wont to do.
| C1sc0cat wrote:
| Applying the national interest in the case of ARM or even
| Cadbury (if France can do it for Danone)
| zoobab wrote:
| This is what several lawyers told me, people are making a
| fuss about the UK breaking the Withdrawal Agreement, but
| other countries do the same in other fields.
| starfallg wrote:
| Let's take a step back and look at the situation. You are
| saying with a straight face several lawyers told you that
| the UK government deliberately breaking an important
| international agreement that was negotiated and signed by
| the same people just months ago is comparable to other
| countries inadvertently breaking some patent agreement
| signed decades ago. A matter that several high-ranking
| British officials had a problem with to the point of
| resigning in the past few days. Only on the interwebs do
| people fall for this tosh.
| Kudos wrote:
| It's not that funny, you must not understand how
| transformative the Good Friday Agreement was for Ireland and
| the UK, even if the typical Brit has no idea. It is a far
| broader reaching concern than software patents in Germany.
| qalmakka wrote:
| I think the only way to really understand why the Good
| Friday agreement is important is to visit Belfast. You need
| to walk through the neighborhoods in order to see the
| gates, the Peace Walls, the murales and the signs
| expressing the grief and pain of two communities who have
| hated each other up to the point of killing each other, and
| still live just a few meters apart.
|
| The whole city felt to me like a wounded animal that has
| only just stopped bleeding, and not it's begging for some
| time for its scars to heal.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| When I was in school in mainland UK IRA bomb threats were
| a thing, the Manchester bombings still live large in my
| memory.
|
| Even from a distance the importance of the peace brokered
| in Ireland is tangible, I feel.
|
| What the royals and ruling classes did to Ireland seems
| as bad as anything they did elsewhere in the 'Empire'. It
| mightn't be logical, but all that history can't be
| ignored. The memories of oppression live long.
| C1sc0cat wrote:
| Probably because Germany only had the not very effective
| RAF terrorists as opposed to the UDF and IRA.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| I was refering more to the link I posted rather than
| software patents in Germany (actually I think software
| patents do have far reaching consequences).
| hogFeast wrote:
| Er, you understand that the IRA was bombing UK cities? They
| bombed a hotel and almost killed the Prime Minister...yes,
| most Brits are very aware of the GFA (I am barely out of my
| 20s, and I lived in London and the constant bomb threats
| are something I remember...this is the reason why some
| train stations in the UK have no bins, they were a main IRA
| target).
|
| Also, what most people who get their opinions on the GFA
| from people in the EU (largely dictated by Irish Catholics
| who believe that Northern Ireland will become part of
| Ireland) is that introducing a border within the UK is not
| any less of a problem than introducing one in Ireland. The
| UK govt's plan was to implement a solution which didn't
| cause any friction, it is clear now that all of the
| implementation was left to the UK and the EU washed it's
| hands of everything (again, the whole principle of GFA is
| that this is everyone's problem). If you are a Protestant
| in Northern Ireland though, the EU's position is/has been
| very worrying and contrary to the GFA in every degree (a
| principle of the GFA is that Northern Ireland is part of
| the UK, the EU issuing legal opinions and advising the
| Irish govt that NI would still be part of the EU if it left
| the UK does not suggest they understand what the GFA says
| at a fundamental level).
| johnnyfaehell wrote:
| To be fair, the leavers outlets seem to be the ones covering
| it the most. It's also a big deal because the country just
| made the agreement, it's not like it's 35 years old and
| everyone who made it is no longer around. It was made by the
| guy who is going to break it.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is unusual not only because of the possible impact on
| the Northern Ireland peace treaty, but because it's an
| agreement that was only just made by the same government.
| Which makes the whole process look particularly stupid and
| insulting.
|
| It's also the deliberateness that has upset people -
| breaching a complex agreement inadvertently is very different
| from setting out to do it deliberately.
| growlist wrote:
| The EU do it all the time. But I guess that doesn't count
| for some reason or other...
| czzr wrote:
| Could you give one example? (Of making an agreement and
| then threatening to intentionally break it very soon
| after?)
| blibble wrote:
| airbus state aid is the biggest recent example: knowingly
| providing unlawful subsidy against WTO rules
|
| the EU ignored its WTO state aid comittments when it
| suited it, and now is trying to force a much much
| stronger version of the rules that it routinely breaks,
| onto the UK
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Good to know Germany is as suggestible as other European
| countries to the influences of big American corporations. The
| longer the EU stays a loose union of countries, the longer it
| will stay susceptible to these kind of moves. Division isn't
| unity.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| Or, if it was a more tight union, then American corporations
| would have only one country to influence rather than each
| country separately.
| Wohlf wrote:
| This may surprise you, but German companies are also heavily
| invested in copyright. The dispute between GEMA and YouTube
| lasted for years.
| zoobab wrote:
| For a more general document, read FFII submission to a public
| consultation:
|
| https://ffii.org/ffii-oppose-the-third-attempt-to-impose-sof...
| shmerl wrote:
| Parasites and crooks keep pushing software patents. Why can't
| there be a stronger push against them?
| zoobab wrote:
| People need to get out of their seat, which is hard.
| beervirus wrote:
| There are some arguments in there about whether or not the UPC is
| a good idea, and although I don't particularly agree with them,
| they're at least plausible.
|
| The _legal_ arguments, on the other hand... let 's just say that
| they are definitely the work of a nonlawyer.
| jakearmitage wrote:
| If this was the US, HN would be all over this. Instead, it is
| rationalizing it. Interesting.
| fastball wrote:
| 1. Most people in the thread seem against this.
|
| 2. Maybe it was more true when you posted 2 hours ago, but that
| is exactly why comments like this one are not helpful.
| jakearmitage wrote:
| It is not about being against the subject or not. It's about
| the way the arguments are presented. In several threads, when
| the same scenario plays in the US, the comments are "ad
| hominem" attacks to the country and its culture. When it
| happens to Germany, the focus is on debating the actual
| issue.
|
| I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here and
| the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the US is
| quite the subject for a study.
|
| Regarding your statement that this comment is not useful:
| perhaps. I've been observing this trend and it's been
| interesting to write notes and have the groundwork for
| something more concrete. Then, it will probably be more
| helpful.
| vinay427 wrote:
| > I'm not American, but the Americanophobia present here
| and the schadenfreude towards bad things happening in the
| US is quite the subject for a study.
|
| As an American in a European country, this rather nicely
| sums up my experience with _some_ (and to be extra
| explicit, definitely _not_ all) people from a wide variety
| of European countries. I 've grown to find it rather
| amusing especially as it serves as a convenient litmus test
| to identify people with whom it is worth discussing
| interesting political topics. I suppose my point is that
| it's probably not just an HN effect.
|
| Many Americans also have their own bits on which to improve
| here, obviously, but I haven't personally been on that side
| of the table.
| lasermike026 wrote:
| How do I get off this planet?
| Angeo34 wrote:
| Von Der Leyen being president should be considered a crime
| against humanity.
| Quanttek wrote:
| I am not an expert on international law but I am 99% sure that
| the legal arguments in the text are partially wrong. Yes, some
| aspects of the UPC are not great but it should rather be opposed
| on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects software patents
| and increased cost of litigation (and maybe that should've been
| done during the negotiations on the treaty).
|
| It's a bit difficult to discern their argument as the text is
| filled with errors and, seemingly, some words were jumbled
| around.
|
| 1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): The text of
| the treaty has already been agreed upon and states have signed
| (or even ratified) it. They are not negotiating the treaty
| anymore, so the UK (as former negotiating state) not agreeing to
| the treaty has no bearing on its entry into force or violates Art
| 24(1) VCLT. As the para. states: "A treaty enters into force in
| such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the
| negotiating States may agree." This is just about how the date is
| set, i.e. either it is laid down in the text or the States agree
| - and that has already happened. Somewhat regularly, states will
| de-ratify treaties or exit negotiations on treaties and the
| treaty can and will still go into force.
|
| 2. Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [1]:
| According to the case law on "tribunal established by law", the
| "law" part must ensure its impartiality and independence and,
| thus, primarily governs its composition (i.e. appointment of
| judges, assignment to cases (where latter cannot "solely depend
| on the discretion of the judicial authorities")) [2]. Note that,
| even in the quote cited in the article it is the object of the
| clause that "the __judicial organisation __... is regulated by
| law emanating from Parliament ", i.e. it concerns their
| composition (also: "object" = aim of article which does not
| necessarily speak to the specific obligations). The composition
| and the independence and impartiality of the Court are provided
| for in Articles 15 to 19 (esp. Art 17: "Judicial independence and
| impartiality" [3]). Only _beyond those rules_ (as well others),
| can the Administrative Committee establish rules of procedure
| (which may not contravene the treaty [4]), after consulting with
| the Commission on compliance with EU law (Article 41). Regarding
| fees, it should at least be noted that the treaty provides for
| the possibility of financial aid for SMEs in Art 36(3) [5].
|
| [1]: Case-law guide
| https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf#page=...
|
| [2]: Quoting generously from the guide:
|
| > _209. The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal
| basis for the very existence of a "tribunal", but also compliance
| by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it
| (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, SS24). The lawfulness of a
| court or tribunal must by definition also encompass its
| composition (Buscarini v.San Marino (dec.)). It is the role of
| the courts to manage their proceedings with a view to ensuring
| the proper administration of justice. The assignment of a case to
| a particular judge or court falls within their margin of
| appreciation in such matters. However, to be compatible with
| Article 6 SS 1, it must comply with the requirements of
| independence and impartiality (Pasquini v. San Marino, SSSS 103
| and 107). The judge assigned to a case must be independent of the
| executive,and the assignment cannot be solely dependent on the
| discretion of the judicial authorities (ibid., SS 110)._
|
| ...
|
| > _212. In principle, a breach by a court of these domestic legal
| provisions gives rise to a violation of Article6 SS1 (DMD Group,
| A.S., v. Slovakia, SS61). The Court may therefore examine whether
| the domestic law has been complied with in this respect. However,
| having regard to the general principle that it is, in the first
| place, for the national courts themselves to interpret the
| provisions of domestic law, the Court finds that it may not
| question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant
| violation of the legislation (ibid.; Biagioli v. San
| Marino(dec.), SS75; Pasquini v. San Marino, SSSS 104 and 109). A
| court which, without any explanation, oversteps the usual limits
| of its jurisdiction in deliberate breach of the law is not a
| "tribunal established by law" in the proceedings in question
| (Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, SSSS27-28)._
|
| > _213.The object of the term "established by law" in Article6
| SS1 is to ensure that the organisation of the judicial system
| does not depend on the discretion of the executive but is
| regulated by law emanating from Parliament (Biagioli v.San
| Marino(dec.), SS74; Savino and Others v.Italy, SS94)._
|
| > _214. Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can
| organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of
| the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the
| courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant
| national legislation (ibid., and case-law references cited)._
|
| > _215.Furthermore, delegating powers in matters concerning the
| organisation of the judicial system is permissible provided that
| this possibility is enshrined in the domestic law of the State,
| including the relevant provisions of the Constitution (ibid.)._
|
| [3]: https://www.unified-patent-
| court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [4]: https://www.unified-
| patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc... [5]:
| https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/upc...
| chki wrote:
| This is a very good point. From a legal standpoint this article
| is highly questionable. I understand that there are political
| issues with this project (on which I'm also not an expert) but
| this should be clearly distinguished from the legal side of
| things.
| zoobab wrote:
| "opposed on public policy grounds, i.e. negative effects
| software patents and increased cost of litigation (and maybe
| that should've been done during the negotiations on the
| treaty)."
|
| Problem is that the Court Fees were decided after the treaty
| has been signed, by this administrative committee.
|
| And they are defeating the purpose of "making the whole system
| cheaper", as it would raise the cost of litigation for a simple
| case.
|
| We warned about this problem long ago, with the predecessor of
| the UPCA, the EPLA:
|
| http://epla.ffii.org/analysis
|
| "A litigation case before the EPLA court will at least be twice
| as expensive as litigation before the national courts of
| Germany, France or the Netherlands."
|
| Stjerna's analysis of the cost situation is roughtly the same,
| a 3 fold increase for a simple case:
|
| https://www.stjerna.de/files/Unipat-Affair.pdf
| Quanttek wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed price
| increase in Stjema's analysis only based on the maximum
| reimbursement allowance for lawyers? Hence, this only
| pertains to the _potential_ for increased costs, not actual
| increased costs. Also, the obvious advantage of a European
| court is that one does not need to enforce one 's patent in
| all State jurisdictions separately, right? Stjema shows how
| this duplication is actually lower than assumed (bc most
| companies choose to only enforce it in one country) but
| wouldn't the assumption be that the need for enforcement in
| more than one jurisdiction increase as the internal market
| for knowledge products becomes ever-more integrated? Although
| I see how it _could_ be more expensive right now (and
| software patents still suck)
|
| I would mainly love to see a response regarding the legal
| side.
| zoobab wrote:
| The actual percentage of cross-border litigation, now that
| the UK has left, is around 7% of all cases. 93% of cases
| are national only, and will suffer from an increase of
| costs just for the beauty of having a pan-European court.
|
| For the legal side and the rules of procedure, we have been
| informed from several high profile lawyers (one being on
| the bench of one of those decisions) that this would not
| survive a test in front of the ECHR, once the UPC is
| running.
| [deleted]
| Borlands wrote:
| Maybe this will strenghten Open Source Software
| animationwill wrote:
| I haven't heard about this Unitary Patent Court. Is this a new
| judicial body in the EU? Where does it's position rank compared
| to other EU judicial bodies?
|
| The article seems to be written for those (legislators) who would
| already know the background
| zoobab wrote:
| "a new judicial body in the EU"
|
| Not really, more like an international court with the blessing
| of the EU.
|
| Cameron forced a deal in 2012 to not have the CJEU as a
| legislator in patent law, and Merkel and Hollande and other
| countries bowed to his demand in order to have a deal.
| kleiba wrote:
| > I haven't heard about this Unitary Patent Court.
|
| That's probably intentional.
| chki wrote:
| What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that
| somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this court?
| Isn't it _a lot_ more probable that this is simply a highly
| technical issue that doesn't get a lot of attention?
|
| As somebody who is somewhat invested into EU law but not into
| patent law I have already heard about it by the way.
|
| I'm always very skeptical about this sort of vague
| accusation, implying that there is some sort of conspiracy.
| kleiba wrote:
| > What do you mean by that? Do you seriously think that
| somebody (who exactly?) is suppressing news about this
| court?
|
| Why are you putting words in my mouth? Especially the
| "seriously" is completely out of place since I never said
| what you claim I did, so why do get worked up over it?
|
| Where was I implying a conspiracy? Did you consider that
| there are other theories that are consistent with my
| original statement - for instance, it's completely
| conceivable that a skilled legislation publishes
| information about a proposed law of they _know_ it 's
| likely to create a backlash in (some parts of) the media in
| a more subdued way, specifically in order to lower the odds
| for getting said negative press.
|
| I agree that this "suppressing news" theory that _you_
| brought to the table is nonsense. But it 's also not
| necessary if you've got a PR person who knows their job.
| chki wrote:
| I didn't intend to confront you and I didn't really "get
| worked up" over this. Sorry if I was a bit blunt. (and
| sorry for potential language confusion, I'm not a native
| speaker)
|
| My issue with your comment was that you have this
| accusation (which you call "probable") that can be
| perfectly explained in another way ("New European Patent
| Law Court" is not going to be a top-selling front page
| headline)
|
| > for instance, it's completely conceivable that a
| skilled legislation publishes information about a
| proposed law of they know it's likely to create a
| backlash in (some parts of) the media in a more subdued
| way, specifically in order to lower the odds for getting
| said negative press.
|
| This is of course technically possible in some situations
| but considering the difficult negotiation and
| ratification process (just look at this https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Unified_Patent_Court#Ratificat...) of the
| UPC it's simply very far off from the reality. Especially
| in Germany where there is an important pending decision
| by the Constitutional Court on this issue which did
| actually get a lot of media attention.
|
| Edit: As pointed out by Zoobab the decision is no longer
| pending but has already been decided.
| zoobab wrote:
| @chki "Especially in Germany where there is an important
| pending decision by the Constitutional Court on this
| issue which did actually get a lot of media attention."
|
| The decision is from 20th of March, where the Court only
| cancelled the ratification for lack of 2/3 majority for
| transferring judicial powers to international courts.
| Same problem seems to happen for ISDS courts in CETA in
| the Netherlands.
|
| As many points raised in the first complaint were not
| addressed by the Court, we will crowdfund soon a second
| constitutional complaint if the UPCA is given a
| greenlight tomorrow.
| trumpeta wrote:
| I don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress the
| information, but on the other hand I'd say EU has a long
| way to go in terms of PR and informing citizens. Somehow
| all these things always surface at 11:55
| Quanttek wrote:
| Tbh, the EU can only do so much: there are plenty of
| press releases, press conferences, and social media posts
| about their legislative proposals. However, the
| gatekeepers of information are different actors: Mostly
| the media or whoever you follow on social media. And, not
| without reason, such a technical debate hasn't really
| engaged interest in the general public. If you are
| actually interested in the topic or in EU law, you will
| likely heard about it because the gatekeepers in that
| field believed it might interest you
| Ygg2 wrote:
| > What do you mean by that?
|
| Well. The less you know about how and what bureaucracy
| does, the less can you ask yourself why does it exist in
| the first place. And the more bureaucrats can keep their
| pointless jobs.
|
| It's not so much conspiracy as protection by obfuscation. I
| bet you don't know why you need even half of documents in
| your last encounter with it.
| chki wrote:
| > I bet you don't know why you need even half of
| documents in your last encounter with it.
|
| I guess you loose that bet.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| I guess. I still wonder about triplicate of that form
| despite having those info on my ID card.
| orbifold wrote:
| As someone that has invented novel algorithms I still feel
| Patents are a net negative especially for software. I just wish
| EU would be a better place for ,,startup" innovation. My
| experience with the university infrastructure in that area isn't
| great:
| jpzisme wrote:
| Why do you think this is (avoiding any anti-refugee sentiment
| in other comments on the thread)?
|
| I used to live in Europe and worked with many Europeans while
| living in the Bay Area. It seems like lots make the jump
| stateside. Having universal healthcare seems like it would be a
| big incentive to take entrepreneurial risk vs. our situation
| here in the U.S.
| redisman wrote:
| It's a bit too simple to say the EU doesn't create software
| startups. Some countries/cities do generate plenty of
| successful startups and some don't. Just like most US states
| haven't produced any successful startups
| Wohlf wrote:
| Because that's only one aspect, you also have to consider
| other things like availability of investment capital,
| operating costs, and the bureaucracy of starting and running
| a business.
| ArkVark wrote:
| The EU is not a great place for innovation, period. Here are
| the major problems:
|
| 1. No common language
|
| 2. Incredibly high taxes, particularly sales taxes
|
| 3. Unfinished transition out of Communism in many Eastern
| Countries
|
| 4. Preference for cheap illegal labor instead of automation
|
| This could be solved by:
|
| 1. Formalising an 'EU English' language so that schools
| teaching it can open up around the continent and families can
| move from one country to another without having to pay for
| extortionate international schools
|
| 2. Eliminate payroll taxes, limit sales taxes to a maximum of
| 10%. Deport all illegal immigrants (who are huge burdens on the
| State and society) and raise pension ages to 70 in order to
| save money. Limit bachelor degrees to the top 20% of the
| population and Master's degrees to the top 10%, to encourage
| people into the workforce earlier in life. Raise taxes on land
| and pollution.
|
| 3. Limit EU funding for countries like Bulgaria that have not
| transitioned to modern Democracy or Bureaucracy.
|
| 4. Withdraw from the UN convention on refugees, deport all
| illegal immigrants, pay and help North African countries to
| guard their own coastlines, and replace migrants with robots
| and automation.
|
| This will immensely boost the living standards of the average
| European, but hurt bureaucrats and old-money.
| cma wrote:
| >Withdraw from the UN convention on refugees
|
| How is it illegal labor if it labor from refugees under the
| legal convention?
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| This reads more like a (ultra-)right-wing party program than
| a substantiated plan to increase innovation.
| flak48 wrote:
| Yep it reads like a xenophobic copypasta that can be used
| in any context just by changing the first line of the
| comment
| j-pb wrote:
| Immigration is NOT the issue. Corrupt government and
| corporatocracy is.
|
| With all those subsidies going to coal, oil, cars, planes and
| whatnot, we could pay and educate all the immigrants a
| thousand fold, and make them a super producive labour force.
|
| You're gonna be a kick ass employee if you're motivated
| enough to risk your life and travel for years, for education
| and a better job.
| ArkVark wrote:
| The economic migrants that have travelled to Europe
| illegally are mostly illiterate and with few skills. They
| are consistently borne out to be at the bottom of society
| and over-represented on welfare rolls and jails.
| Essentially they will form a permanent underclass in Europe
| and a forever burden.
|
| They come into Europe to work on huge farms owned by
| wealthy Europeans. Here is an example - essentially all of
| the manual labour in these towns is illegal:
|
| https://www.dw.com/en/spains-sea-of-plastic-where-europe-
| get...
|
| Without these workers the production would be automated and
| picked by robots (providing jobs for European engineers,
| technicians, developers). When you can pay someone $2/hour,
| with their lives subsidies by the taxpayer, there is no
| justification for robots.
|
| The most dastardly action performed by the ruling class of
| Europe is to bring in millions of exploitable workers and
| claim they are doing it on the basis of human rights.
| ipnon wrote:
| Strong patent laws stop innovation at the research stage.
| Derivative works, such as turning research into a startup or a
| public company, becomes rent seeking.
|
| Where in the world can you escape this rent seeking?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| There's a lot of innovation going on by patent filing
| companies, which shows your claim to be false.
|
| Perhaps you intend to say it chills or hinders innovation -
| if so, do you have some statistical proof?
|
| _My personal opinion, unrelated to my employment._
| adammunich wrote:
| China
| ipnon wrote:
| China's stereotype is having no copyright enforcement, but
| this seems to be wrong.
|
| >Plaintiffs won in 80.16% of all patent infringement cases
| included in the population. Such a win rate was higher than
| its counterparts in many major countries - Germany
| (approximately 66%) and the United States (approximately
| 60%), for example.
|
| https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-
| lit...
| malandrew wrote:
| Are there statistics based on national origin of
| defendant and plaintiff?
|
| I'm curious if 80.16% rate for all cases holds up when
| the defendant is a domestic company and the plaintiff is
| a foreign company and vice versa.
| ipnon wrote:
| Read the reference and see that the win rate is higher
| for foreign plaintiffs than Chinese plaintiffs.
| realradicalwash wrote:
| Aren't other countries that have already ratified UP in violation
| of those agreements, too? I.e., how is this about Germany in
| particular and not about the European patent system itself?
| dalbasal wrote:
| Because it's a letter addressed to members of Bundesrat. It's
| not an article about the issue in general.
| zoobab wrote:
| The software patent directive of 2005 was rejected at the
| request for multinationals (IBM, Philips, Microsoft, etc...)
| who pushed for a central patent instead.
|
| Some other countries have ratified, some like Spain, Poland,
| Czech republic have stayed away for different reasons, like
| languages and higher costs of litigation for small companies.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-17 23:00 UTC)