Talk:G 3/08

importance

"and are, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance " This value judgement is unusable, because it begs the question: important for whom? In what way important? etc. In a article you don't have to raise the "importance". --Arebenti (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Article 112(1) EPC also uses the expression "of fundamental importance": "if a point of law of fundamental importance arises". It neither says "important for whom?" nor "In what way important?" Meanwhile, Article 112(1) EPC is not "unusable"... --Edcolins (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

These are phrases in a legal context. When you endorse them in an encyplopaedic context the standards are different.--84.129.65.216 --Arebenti (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"has been raised, as to whether..."

"The question has been raised, however, as to whether the referral is admissible at all under the legal provisions of the EPC, and in particular Article 112(1)(b) EPC.[4]" - Some parties dispute the admissability of the referral, e.g. Straus. The question if the referral is admissable or not has always to get considered by the decision making body, the Enlarged board. So any referral raises the question. --Arebenti (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I have reworded the sentence. --Edcolins (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the admissibility of the referral is extremely significant in this case - it is not often that a referral is turned away, but there is a real possibility of it happening here. There aren't any obviously reliable sources (plenty of blogs that I trust for good information personally, but wouldn't cite here) but it is significant that the previous EPO president did not believe a referral was appropriate. Perhaps http://www.managingip.com has something to say on the issue, but I don't have a subscription. GDallimore (Talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Art 112 raises the following requirements:

1. "a point of law of fundamental importance"
2. "two Boards of Appeal"
3. "different decisions on that question"

I think, the importance is obvious and out of discussion. What is meant with "two BoA" (3.5.1 v 3.5.01 (T_424/03); van den Berg v Steinbrener) is not defined and which level of differences are appropriate has to be defined by the President of the EPO according to 112 (1) (b), not by the EBoA. So contrary to Straus, Sylvestris, and others I can't see a problem of admissibility. As Arebenti said, admissibility has always to be considered. --Swen (talk • contribs) 06:3, 03 Jun 2009 (UTC)

EboA for complex decisions?

"Referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are said to be rare, happening only with the most complex questions." Complex questions, not true. "said to be rare" can and should be checked, you find around 4 per year. Earlier referrals dealt with technicalities, this referral deals with mostly political matters of a complex nature. --Arebenti (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Edcolins (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, improvements and better sources (more academic?) are welcomed. --Edcolins (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case the empirical evidence is out there and verifiability of claims by a reliable source is overruled by falsification of facts through empirical evidence. --Arebenti (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Authoratative source

According to the New York Times, the referral has been welcomed "by lawyers and software engineers alike". [17] The NYT is no qualified source for that and does no empirical research. In fact if you need to mention the NYT and cannot state it here, then it is pretty baseless, please avoid footnote spam.--Arebenti (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "In fact if you need to mention the NYT and cannot state it here, then it is pretty baseless"? What should we mention on the talk page something that belongs to the article? --Edcolins (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NYT = Paul Meller = IDG. It is a biased source, the phrase above is "newspaper jargon". It is known that many persons are not happy with the referral, notably the patent attorney associations, EPO top specialists that were surprised by it, and also the parties that disputed the inadmissability. Now, all the gossip aside, it is equally diplomatic jargon to praise the move in an Amicus letter. It is difficult to falsify the statement because it cannot be falsified. It bears as much truth as to write it has been dismissed "by lawyers and software engineers alike". I personally welcome the referral, belonging to neither party, probably for other reasons than Alison Brimelow, but I recognize a weasel wording that could not survive without the "verifiability" of IDG's spin doctor in Brussels. --Arebenti (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe that software engineers were interested at all in this case, except those who are interesten in (patent) politics. Rbakels (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

First reactions

In its present form, the section "First reactions" inevitably fails to present a neutral point of view. All significant views should be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. To alert the reader, I have tagged that section for now. --Edcolins (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, several years later, there is no point in referring to "first reactions"! Apart from that, Justine Pila's analysis is a very particular analysis, the analysis of one particular academic and by no means representative of a general feeling after the decision.

What is the general feeling now? One view is that the entire process is by and large irrelevant: the EBA did not object to present practice (irrespective of the reason not to do so!), which is construed by some as an affirmation that the present practice is correct. I think that the EBA only said that it is not inconsistent.~

In sum, why hasn't this section been removed yet? Rbakels (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it's sourced and nobody has come forward with other reliable sources presenting other views on the decision. The article simply says what the sources say. GDallimore (Talk) 15:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to expand this section. There must be plenty of sources discussing G 3/08 by now. --Edcolins (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)