Talk:G 1/19
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by Rbakels in topic NPOV
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has a deprecated, substituted, or incorrect infobox and needs a new one. Please replace with {{Infobox European case}}. |
NPOV
[edit]This article appears to be written by the EPO, ignoring the essence of the controversy on this theme.
Members of the EPO Boards of Appeal are no judges and should be careful to observe the limits of authority of a government agency. Rbakels (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the criticism. Could you please be more precise? Which part of the article is problematic? Why would the article ignore "the essence of the controversy on this theme"? This case isn't about the independence of the Boards of Appeal. Again, if you can provide additional, reliable sources, I would be happy to improve this article based on those! Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- \zThe lack of independence of the boards of appeal is a problem, but that is not my point here.
- The decision is by and large based on an analysis of the technical content of the application. The EPO pretends that the technicity is essential since the EPC since the 2000 update says that patents are available “in all fields of technology”. But “all” is not the same as “only”, and the text of the relevant provision primarily prohibits any discrimination. The technicity requirement historically is just a German tradition. An English judge called it a “restatement of the problem in more imprecise terminology”. For a proper approach, refer to the Amicus brief I wrote, and my PhD thesis, ISBN 978-90-5850-862-1.
- I am aware that Wikipedia does not allow original research, but I am referring to published external sources, and the present approach is simply flawed. It is inconsistent. Rbakels (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Eye-witness Testimonial of a Person who was personally Involved in That Case
[edit]found here https://ip-lawyer-tools.com/no-contradiction-between-comvik-and-t1227-05-infineon/ Innovate888 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)