User talk:L.tak/Archives/2015 1

Opinion

Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Commencement of operations" versus "entry into force"

I appreciate your hunt for accuracy, but do not agree (or see the need) for your latest reformulation of my UPC commencement line. In your latest reply you wrote "legally IMO the UPC simply will exist upon entry into force, whether the prep com has been asleep or not". I 100% agree on that. The point however is that "legal entry into force" is not necesarrily the same as "commencement of operations of UPC". As explained by the initial roadmap document, the court will first need establishment of "new structures" before being able to "commence operations". When the ratified UPC agreement "enters into force", it only legally bind the ratifiers to start using the UPC as soon as it has "commenced operations" - which is something the UPC administrative committee decides with 3/4 majority based upon the last status report of the UPC preparatory committee. Currently we have a high probability that the UPC agreement will "enter into force" around ultimo 2014, while the "UPC preparatory committee" according to my posted reference in March 2014 has announced "commencement of operations" now only will happen by "the end of 2015 at the earliest". Just to put our debate into perspective, the European Stability Mechanism also "entered into force" on 27 September 2012, while its "commencement of operation" took place on 8 October 2012 after its inauguaral meeting. So it is not strange that "commencement of operation" sometimes happen later than the "entry into force". For the UPC, they of course intially attempted to get it operational from the moment the legal UPC treaty will "enter into force", but as per my posted March 2014 reference they have failed. I suggest we on those grounds keep my initial formulation of the first line (and already reversed it back), as it help clarify to readers that "commencement of operations" only will happen once both of the two conditions are met: (1) "Entry into force of the UPC treaty" (the legal one) and (2) "Preparatory Committee completes all preparatory work incl. the statutory regulation for the UPC". Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, your source doesn't state this as two hard conditions (the finishing of 5 working groups completely; some loose ends may exist of course) and I still think there is a different between the hard and the soft requirement, so we can not speak about "2 conidtions" in the way you did. I hope you like my amendment; otherwise, please remove the section per BRBRBRBRD and start a discussion on the talk page. L.tak (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite being in favour of a sentence that more clearly enlight readers that "entry into force" is not the same as "commencement of operations" (due to the latter only being possible from the moment the Preparatory Committee has completed their preparatory work), I can accept your latest reformulation for now, as a compromise. By time, the history will automaticly tell the story to the readers with the clarity I want, as I am rather sure the treaty will enter into force some months ahead of the UPC commencement of operations. Danish Expert (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Currently we have a high probability that the UPC agreement will "enter into force" around ultimo 2014". Why? with UK planning to ratify medio 2015 and DE not started? L.tak (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK ratification has ended with a royal assent on 14 May 2014 and now only awaits the deposit, which is something that most likely will happen in the third quarter of 2014. If you have other info, then please enlighten my by a source and explanation. Germany are also known to have a rather fast ratification speed from the moment they first start (i.e. it only took 1 month for the German parliament to ratify the Fiscal Compact in 2012 -if we for a moment do not consider the following additional 3 month delay caused by the presidents awaital of the ruling by the German constitutional court). So if Germany introduce the ratification bill in September 2014, they are likely to complete their ratification with a deposit after 3 months. All in all it is my personal assesment, that all ratification criteria will have been met in December 2014 - meaning the treaty will enter into force on 1 April 2015. We shall see. In all circumstances this is not really important to our debate, as I do not desire to add any personal assessed forcasts into the article. My only intention was to emphasize the fact, that it is possible for the treaty to enter into force several months ahead of the "UPC commencement of operations". Danish Expert (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

" "commenced operations" - which is something the UPC administrative committee decides with 3/4 majority based upon the last status report of the UPC preparatory committee". this would be useful to use... but which status report do you mean? I didn't see it on the 5th report on the website of the UPC prep com. L.tak (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

At the UPC website, you can find information that the "administrative committee" comprise one person from each of the participating member states, and that it requires a 3/4 majority for the final version of the "UPC rules of procedure" to be adopted. This summary of the preparatory work can also add some extra details about the preparatory work. The website only states that the preparatory committee will exist until the establishment of the UPC. I have no source - and only assumed by logic - that the administrative committee also will need a 3/4 majority to close down the preparatory committee based upon their final concluding report. Forget my arguing comment about that, as it was only speculation. I am however rather sure that it ultimately will be the "administrative committee" taking the formal decision at an inaugural meeting, at what date the UPC is ready to "commence operations". This is a decision obviously depending on what date the pre-required preparatory work can be completed. Only if the preparatory work by miracle has been completed ahead of the "entry into force of the UPC treaty", the "commencement of operations" will happen at the same day as the "entry into force of the UPC treaty". Danish Expert (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He Danish, I understand what you are saying; it is unclear how the procedure will be, but there will be some formal decision by the prep com and/or the admin com upon commencement of operations. Let me throw my own OR in regarding ratification... I think it will be quite hard to get 11 more ratifications in the next 1.5 year, but this may be possible (actually; that sounds about right to me... shorter will also not be realistic). It is in this case very problematic if the court cannot start on day 1, because it is the only place where unitary patents can be fought (and prelim injunctions etc maybe very time sensitive); and the legal vacuum of companies that formally would be able to i) op out of the jurisdiction and ii) start proceedings against patents not opted out would be very unsatifisfying. I hope Germany or the UK will be smart enough -in consultation with the prep com- to wait with the deposit of their instrument of until things are ready; and I always silently assumed they would; but you opened my eyes that this scenario still may be a possibility. L.tak (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi L.tak, we have now reached fine consensus for our discussion above. So this comment is just a small final sidenote, to let you know, that I today have found additional information about the UK ratification process, which basically was more complicated compared to what I (and others) initially thought. They also need parliamentary approval of an "implementation order" as part of their ratification instrument. The implementation order is currently under technical review until 2 September, and then the government will subsequently submit a final draft order for the parliaments approval. Which mean the UK parliaments approval at the earliest is to be expected around Q1-2015. I have added the info to the UPC article. The only point I am currently unaware of, and where I need your help or attention, is whether or not royal assent in general also will be required for enactment of Orders passed by the UK parliament? I know all Laws need a royal assent, but what about Orders? Danish Expert (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just looked up my question. Order in Council requires royal assent, while a Order of Council does not. So my question to you now is, which type of order we are dealing with here? If its too complicated/impossible to find out, I propose we assume for the moment that a royal assent will be needed. Then we can always later on change it, in case the final draft Order indicate that no royal assent will be needed. Best regards, and thanks for all your good work with the EU related articles. Danish Expert (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not too enthusiastic about adding a second approval process, because of the precedence effect it may have. In effect, the UK has no approval process, and that is why we used a (somewhat arbitrarily chosen) implementation act as a placeholder (which was justifiable: parliament would have a formal way of saying no, and thus it could be considered a "de facto" ratification act). By adding the second approval process we run the risk that also all kinds of other implementation acts will need to be in the table; which I feel is highly overdone and thus undesirable. However, our implementation choices in the UK seem so arbitrary (I could defend choosing 1 (the latest), keeping the earlier one, keeping two, removing both) I have no problem keeping the current version (or any other of my suggestions), as long as it has no bearing on the otehr countries' entries. As for Order in/of Council; I frankly have no idea... L.tak (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you this solution is only for UK, and should not be allowed for other countries. I will help you enforce that policy. For UK however, I think we should keep the 2 implementation law entries due to their arbitrary process. Speaking about Malta, I presume (without knowing) they have engaged in a process where its parliament first approved the ratification, and then as step two still needs to pass their needed implementation law ahead of their deposit of the ratification instrument. Most "normal ratifiers" opted to attach the implementation provisions along with the ratification act, at least this is how we did it in Denmark. Even if my speculation about Malta is correct, I will support your view that we should not add an extra line illustrating the future pass of their implementation law. Its better to leave this out, and only place the info as a small note in the "ratification note" chapter. Danish Expert (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We could make a ratification note indeed if we have data available; most EU jurisidictions indeed do prepare their implementation leglistion together with the act, although many (luxembourg, Netherlands) have separate instruments (in the Netherlands a ratification act never has implementation info). For Malta, I have no idea, and it is quite hard to obtain info..... L.tak (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Benelux Court of Justice

Hello! Your submission of Benelux Court of Justice at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK template. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK template. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bali Accord

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#BRD with unilateral moves?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Benelux Court of Justice

Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Q

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Deckmyn vs Vandersteen. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Deckmyn vs Vandersteen page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Deckmyn vs Vandersteen

Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar - sorry for messing around

Hi L.tak, just a short note. As part of my reply today in the Legal problem of retroactive unitary effect ? debate, I have realized your argument was absolutely correct from the start that Gibraltar most likely wont be forced to apply the Unitary Patent regulations. The point is, which I first became aware of today, that the Regulation 1257 perfectly allow for any participating member state territory just to become a "Unitary Patent derogation territory" in case it should decide never to ratify the UPC Agreement. So it all depends on whether or not the mother state extends the coverage of its UPC Agreement also to include these dependent territories. As the UPC Agreement is an intergovernmental agreement and not EU Law, none of the participating Member State's dependent territories enjoying full EU membership, will be forced by EU to join the unitary patent + UPC. Sorry for being so slow to realize this, I just woke up to reality here today. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem; that was indeed the point I tried to make on the Unified Patent Court talk page, but we have solved that to satisfaction now... Nevertheless, there is a possibility the European Union will consider the UK (and thus the UK ratification of the UPC) in this context to automatically Gibraltar (also because the EU treaties are not formally extended to them). It's not my preferred interpretation, but it is thinkable that this ends up at the CJEU because of this at some moment...

• Btw: do you based on the way you see it now; also agree with me based on our interpretation, that the unitary patent "on the basis the regulations" will never automatically apply to the Isle of Man; as the territorial scope of unitary patents is defined in an EU regulation, and that UPC ratification of a non-EU territory doesn't change that? [but that Isle of Man may unilaterally decide that unitary patents that are valid according to the regulation, are valid on the Isle as a matter of "national" (UK-Man) law; and thus take the form of a national EP-UK-Man patent (for which the UPC has jurisdiction)]? L.tak (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is getting a bit complicated. But the way I see it: Yes (but also think unitary effect by-itself can be extended to cover Isle of Man). Isle of Man only needs to pass their own independent national law saying that "regulation 1257+1260" also apply on Isle of Man, which will pave the way for unitary effect to be directly extended to cover their territory when UK (incl. Isle of Man) ratifies the UPC Agreement. Patent law wise, they are already covered by the UK Patent Law, and should on basis of this be fully ready for both the court and unitary patent. Implementation wise, they might perhaps need to adjust some local laws to prevent conflicts with the Unitary patent regulations (don't know). Bottom line is, that if Isle of Man just passes a law stating that regulation 1257+1260 also apply on Isle of Man, then the unitary effect will extend to this territory when the UPC Agreement enters into force for UK (incl. Isle of Man). Of course this unilateral adoption will not be possible by any EPC non-EU member states, but only by the dependent territories of EU Member States. Danish Expert (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(still not relevant, but too interesting not to work out further ;-)) : I agree, they will need to pass their own legislation (stating the regulations apply), which will make them apply a revocation to their territory... But what if infringement takes place of a unitary patent (only) on the Isle of Man and an action is brought before the unified patent court? Will the UPC have jurisdiction, and on which basis?

1. The UPC will first look for jurisdiction in its own Agreement, has its sources of law in Article 24
2. Accordingly it will first look if the unitary patent regulations apply (24(1)
3. I think their conclusion should be: they don't (there is nothing in EU law that binds the Isle on this subject; there is nothing in EU law that allows territories to decide to be bound by EU law)
4. The unitary patent will thus not apply to them as a matter of EU law
5. Then it will look in the agreement for a basis UPC24(2)
6. the agreement applies to "European patents" (which is: without unitary effect, article UPC2e) by virtue of article UPC3c, the territorial scope covers the Isle (UPC artticle34)
7. So only if a European patent without unitary effect applies on the Isle, the court will have jurisdiction....
8. Now in the UK there will have initially (probably for a few days) been a European patent without unitary effect (EP-UK), which applies to the Isle as well (EP-UK-Man) because of the extension
9. Upon grant of the unitary effect, the EP-UK patent will retroactively never have existed
10. (from now on I am not sure anymore) But the EP-UK-Man patent may still exist from an EU point of view; as the regulation can produce no automatic legal effects;
11. because the Isle applied the unitary patent unilaterally (and if they do so in a smart way; we'll see), that application can be seen as a national law governing their European patent without unitary effect
12. and thus there will be jurisdiction

For the sake of the argument, could you indicate to me where you (dis)agree with me? I have the feeling from your answer you don't agree with Nr 2 already; but in that case I wonder by which legal basis the UPC will assume assume the unitary patent Regulations will apply... L.tak (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think (without being certain), that the UK Patent Order will grant UPC jurisdiction to the entire "UK territory including Isle of Man" as one overall unit, and that the UK ratification instrument for the UPC Agreement will reflect + register this fact. If Isle of Man at the same time pass our agreed national law "Regulation 1257+1260 will also apply here", then the court on this combined basis, will already from your point 2, conclude that for patent matters no territorial difference exists between Isle of Man and UK. They are to be conveyed as one territorial unit. So a unitary patent infringement on Isle of Man (even for the rare cases where infringement of a unitary patent only took place on Isle of Man), would be treated just as it was a UK infringement, thus granting UPC jurisdiction with equal effect. The way I see it - this legal trick will only be possible - if and only if the dependent territory is an identical part of the motherlands patent law. This is the case for Isle of Man. For the Danish dependencies Faeroe Island and Greenland, this is not an option, as the Danish Patent Law does not apply equally to them. Danish Expert (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To conclude then: this is exactly where we disagree. I think in interpreting point two there is no legal basis for the UPC to look at the ratification document of the UPC by the UK or to the national implementation law of the UK-Man, but that it has to look at the EU law from an EU perspective (as it is EU law including EU regulations that needs to be applied), so it cannot have jurisdiction on this basis. Hopefully the Man implementation law will shed some light on the legislatevie strategy followed... To be continued! L.tak (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Update notice

I have solved the previous "Reference Errors on 5 August" issue (reported by the bot), and now removed its text from your talkpage to save space. Also in case you didn't notice, last friday I left you a reply in our court cases talkpage debate. There is no urgent request for reply, just wanted to forward a notification as I suspect the automatic one might have failed. Thanks for all your great work in the two articles. I will be very busy for the next 2 months, and basically absent from the work to further improve/update the articles. Keep up all your good work. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Danish, thanks for the explanation re. the court cases... I hadn't made up my mind, so that is why I didn't react there. I saw the article you linked to already from an earlier blog and was (relatively) pleasantly surprised: his earlier articles are quite "acitivist"; and here the facts were easily distinguishable from his opinion... Based on this paper and the other things I read, I assume the weakest thing is the formal legal basis and the move of article s 6-8 from the regulation (under the purview of ECJ) to the Agreement (not under the purview of ECJ, unless it is EU law related). A ruling that this should requires amendments of the regulation and could indeed jeopardize UK participation... I may go ahead with the article; or I'll wait; as I have some other wikipedia related things running; good luck with the rest of your activities in the next 2 months; we'll undoubtedly be in contact afterwards (or occasionally in the mean time)!... L.tak (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Benelux Office for Intellectual Property

I have just requested a source relating to one of your edits. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

UNCLOS

Hi; regarding this edit: the UN website is showing here that the Convention now only has 165 parties and that Ghana has withdrawn from it (the brackets around its signature and ratification dates indicates withdrawal or denunciation on the UN website). What am I missing here, and why does the website say this if there are still 166 parties?

I've read the recent news about Ghana taking the maritime boundary issue to the convention's dispute resolution system, which explains why the withdrawal here was made, but I'm not getting why the official list is showing Ghana as having denounced the treaty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, weird indeed... A UN official pushing the wrong button? Ghana seems to have withdrawn, but their is no date, nor a footnote, nor depositary notification recorded about that fact.... We'll see if this gets clarified in some days... No problem to keep it at 165 until that time... L.tak (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was wondering about this as well. The depositary notification is pretty clear that it is a withdrawal of the declaration, so I'm confident that it is a mistake on the list. The treaty text says that "denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification" so even if they did denounce the treaty, they would remain a party for another year. If it isn't corrected within the next few days (they are probably rather busy with this at the moment) it might be worth dropping them an email about it. TDL (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been rectified now. Sorry for my obtuseness on the matter. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GrubHub logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GrubHub logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks

For attention paid to Kyoto Protocol NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know what happened in the past months, but it certainly didn't improve; now it is again correct as far as i can tell.. L.tak (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

ICC member states

Hi -- you updated Template:ICC member states but put the new information into the "noinclude" section containing the reference list -- just wondering whether that was on purpose? Joriki (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

nope; that's an omission from my side... Thanks for the notification! L.tak (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

C-146/13 and C-147/13

There is a question for you, here. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the tips! Quartee (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hague Adoption Convention

Hi! Thank you for your feedback! I started some of the edits you suggested. I am looking to expand more in the next few days.

I also have a question I found this information in an academic journal about some countries being suspected from Hague. "The US also suspended adoption relationship with selected countries, due to Hague Convention or other rationales: Vietnam, temporarily suspended [26] due to allegations of corruption and baby-selling [27] Guatemala, the adoption was shut down in 2007 for adoption after allegations of corruption, families being coerced and children kidnapped to feed U.S. demand.[28] (See Also: Adoption in Guatemala) Nepal, Although Nepal has not closed it doors for adoption, the United States government has suspended adoptions from Nepal. Documents that were presented documenting the abandonment of these children in Nepal have been found to be unreliable and circumstances of alleged abandonment cannot be verified because of obstacles in the investigation of individual cases.[29]"

MALHOTRA, A. (2014). To Return or Not to Return: Hague Convention vs. Non-Convention Countries. Family Law Quarterly, 48(2), 297-318

Should we update the Map of ratified countries with this information?

thanks fellow editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvy028 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)