(I do think it amusing that the pollies have basically come out and said: "we're delaying the implementation of this policy, because the public response has been too positive"
;-)
Of course. And if they'd received a high negative response, they'd shelve it for that reason. And if they received little response, they'd decide that the public didn't care that much and therefore shelve the policy for that reason. The public participation is a farce, because whatever the public does, they can come up with a justification based on that response to do what they want anyway.
Elektroschock wrote:
Who are the persons? Unelected conspirators govern the EPO? Bilderberg group?
I don't think the staff union of the European Patent Office or the FFII wanted to suggest any kind of conspiracy theory. In my report on the FFII's criticsm of the proposed reform, that thinking is explained under the following subhead:
The theory of a "captive" court system
(contains a reference to what a justice of the SCOTUS said about the patent-specialized CAFC)
I pointed out that liberalization, which is what the EU is now mostly known for, was not the original number one priority.
I generally like the idea of a large European market and it's good if the EU opens up markets that its Member States are sometimes hesitant to liberalize/deregulate.
Yeah, it's like saying some ancient tribe washes their hands because a magic goat told them to.
And then hundreds of years later it turns out washing your hands is good for your health.
Then praising their magic goat.
I mean, really. He predicted wireless messages, like AM radio;which makes sense and it's technically true.
He did not predicts Blackberry,s computers, of much of anything digital. His other version was to send messages vie lighting bolts.
Again, not the same thing.
Forget the Gibson, the computer at the school controlled the sprinkler system!
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"