Podcasts about The Hague

Welcome to The Hangar Z Podcast, brought to you by Vertical HeliCASTS, in partnership with Vertical Valor Magazine.In this two-part series, we go international and speak with Hangar Z co-hosts and international instructors. The panel includes Harald Brink, chief tactical flight officer from the Dutch national police; Lt Clay Lacey from the Texas Department of Public Safety; and Jon Duke, a U.K. military aviation veteran and contributor to Vertical and Vertical Valor magazines. This conversation goes beyond borders to examine the common ground and critical differences in air support operations between the U.S. and Europe. From suspect behavior that looks the same in Dallas as it does in The Hague, to the training that makes agency operations effective and efficient.We talk about the intense task saturation of the tactical flight officer—a job we argue is the most difficult in all of law enforcement—and the crucial safety threshold of simulator training, plus the tactical impact of flying single-engine helicopters versus the big twins.Check out the article "Aerial Pursuit Across Continents" by Jon Duke, who joins us to help cross-pollinate these incredible conversations into print. You can find the article in the Fall issue of Vertical Valor magazine. Visit VerticalMag.com to read more about this collaboration that came to life, alongside this recording!Thank you to our sponsors Bell, CENTUM and Precision Aviation Group.

Hii leo jaridani tunakuletea mada kwa kina inayomulika Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa kulinda viumbe hai wa baharini kwenye Bahari Kuu na ujumbe wa Mzee Ali Haji, Naibu Katibu Mkuu anayehusika na Katiba na Sheria katika Ofisi ya Rais, Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar nchini Tanzania kuhus umuhimu wa mkataba huu.Kesi inaendelea katika Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Haki, ICJ mjini The Hague, kuhusu madai kwamba Myanmar ilitekeleza mauaji ya kimbari dhidi ya watu wa Rohingya. Mawakili wa Gambia wameiambia mahakama hiyo kuwa jeshi la Myanmar lilichochea ghasia kupitia kauli za chuki, likiwaita Warohingya “mbwa Waislamu”kabla ya mashambulizi ya mwaka 2017.Baada ya zaidi ya siku 1,000 za mzozo, Sudan inakabiliwa na mgogoro mkubwa zaidi wa njaa na uhamaji wa watu duniani. Shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Mpango wa Chakula Duniani WFP, leo linaonya kuwa operesheni zake za kuokoa maisha ziko hatarini kutokana na uhaba mkubwa wa ufadhili.Mamilioni ya raia wa Uganda leo walipiga kura katika uchaguzi mkuu wa Rais, wabunge na serikali za mitaa huku Shirika la Umoja wa Mataifa la Kuhudumia Wakimbizi UNHCR likisisitiza umuhimu wa wakimbizi zaidi ya milioni moja nchini humo kubaki bila kuegemea upande wowote wa kisiasa. Shirika hilo limeonya kuwa kushiriki katika siasa kunaweza kuwakosesha wakimbizi usalama, kupelekea mateso kutoka nchi zao za asili, au kuathiri ulinzi na hali yao ya hifadhi nchini Uganda.Na katika kujifunza lugha ya Kiswahili na leo Dkt. Mwanahija Ali Juma, Katibu Mtendaji wa Baraza la Kiswahili, Zanzibar nchini Tanzania, BAKIZA anafafanua maana na ya neno "MLOWIMA"Mwenyeji wako ni Rashid Malekela, karibu!

We hear from a man who is immersed in the world of startups, innovation, venture capital, and the work of policymakers whose job it is to strengthen Europe's standing in all those fields. He's also a Prince of the Netherlands and the brother of the Dutch King. Constantijn van Oranje has worked as a business consultant and at the European Commission. He is now a champion of the Dutch tech sector through his organisation, Techleap, set up to support the founders and startups hoping to shape the future of Europe's economy. It's given him a platform to have his say on some of the most pressing issues facing Europe today - but how does he balance his role with that of Prince? We talk politics, regulation and unicorns. If you'd like to get in touch with Business Daily, our email address is businessdaily@bbc.co.ukPresented and produced by Matthew Kenyon(Picture: Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands presents the annual report of Techleap during the conference State of Dutch Tech on 12 February, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. Credit: Getty Images)

Who are expatriates? How do they differ from other migrants? And why should we care about such distinctions? Expatriate: Following a Migration Category (Manchester University Press, 2023) by Dr. Sarah Kunz interrogates the contested category of 'the expatriate' to explore its history and politics, its making and lived experience. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research, the book offers a critical reading of International Human Resource Management literature, explores the work and history of the Expatriate Archive Centre in The Hague, and studies the usage and significance of the category in Kenyan history and present-day 'expat Nairobi'. Doing so, the book traces the figure of the expatriate from the mid-twentieth-century era of decolonisation to today's heated debates about migration. The expatriate emerges as a malleable and contested category, of shifting meaning and changing membership, and as passionately embraced by some as it is rejected by others. Dr. Kunz situates the changing usage of the term in the context of social, political and economic struggle and explores the material and discursive work the expatriate performs in negotiating social inequalities and power relations. Migration, the book argues, is a key terrain on which colonial power relations have been reproduced and translated, and migration categories are at the heart of the insidious ways that intersecting material and symbolic inequalities are enacted today. Any project for social justice needs to dissect and interrogate categories like the expatriate, and this book offers analytical and methodical strategies to advance this project. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Who are expatriates? How do they differ from other migrants? And why should we care about such distinctions? Expatriate: Following a Migration Category (Manchester University Press, 2023) by Dr. Sarah Kunz interrogates the contested category of 'the expatriate' to explore its history and politics, its making and lived experience. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research, the book offers a critical reading of International Human Resource Management literature, explores the work and history of the Expatriate Archive Centre in The Hague, and studies the usage and significance of the category in Kenyan history and present-day 'expat Nairobi'. Doing so, the book traces the figure of the expatriate from the mid-twentieth-century era of decolonisation to today's heated debates about migration. The expatriate emerges as a malleable and contested category, of shifting meaning and changing membership, and as passionately embraced by some as it is rejected by others. Dr. Kunz situates the changing usage of the term in the context of social, political and economic struggle and explores the material and discursive work the expatriate performs in negotiating social inequalities and power relations. Migration, the book argues, is a key terrain on which colonial power relations have been reproduced and translated, and migration categories are at the heart of the insidious ways that intersecting material and symbolic inequalities are enacted today. Any project for social justice needs to dissect and interrogate categories like the expatriate, and this book offers analytical and methodical strategies to advance this project. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Who are expatriates? How do they differ from other migrants? And why should we care about such distinctions? Expatriate: Following a Migration Category (Manchester University Press, 2023) by Dr. Sarah Kunz interrogates the contested category of 'the expatriate' to explore its history and politics, its making and lived experience. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research, the book offers a critical reading of International Human Resource Management literature, explores the work and history of the Expatriate Archive Centre in The Hague, and studies the usage and significance of the category in Kenyan history and present-day 'expat Nairobi'. Doing so, the book traces the figure of the expatriate from the mid-twentieth-century era of decolonisation to today's heated debates about migration. The expatriate emerges as a malleable and contested category, of shifting meaning and changing membership, and as passionately embraced by some as it is rejected by others. Dr. Kunz situates the changing usage of the term in the context of social, political and economic struggle and explores the material and discursive work the expatriate performs in negotiating social inequalities and power relations. Migration, the book argues, is a key terrain on which colonial power relations have been reproduced and translated, and migration categories are at the heart of the insidious ways that intersecting material and symbolic inequalities are enacted today. Any project for social justice needs to dissect and interrogate categories like the expatriate, and this book offers analytical and methodical strategies to advance this project. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

When it comes to international dispute settlement, cities like The Hague, Geneva, and Singapore usually top the list. Now, there's a new name to add: Hong Kong. In October, the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) was officially inaugurated there, the world's first intergovernmental legal body dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation. Proposed by 19 countries including China, IOMed is already up and running. How will mediation here be different? And can it meet the expectations of developing countries?

Can the United States arrest a foreign head of state by sending FBI agents—and military troops—into another country? On the latest episode of Stanford Legal,  Professor Pam Karlan sits down with international law expert and Stanford Law lecturer Allen Weiner to discuss the recent extraction of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro. Their wide-ranging conversation focuses on the uneasy space where U.S. law collides with the constraints of international law.Weiner, a former U.S. State Department legal adviser and now director of several international law–and humanitarian-focused programs at Stanford Law School, explains how domestic legal theories advanced to justify Operation Absolute Resolve in contrast with the UN Charter's ban on the use of force. He situates the episode in a longer arc of U.S. efforts to reconcile military action with international legal limits, including earlier debates over actions in Kosovo and Libya.The legal questions are substantial, but the stakes ultimately turn on precedent and norms: how U.S. actions are understood by other states, what they signal to rivals such as Russia and China, and whether the international system begins to resemble the logic captured in Thucydides' Peloponnesian Wars—that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”Links:Allen Weiner >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00) Is a threat a use of force? (00:16:18) Pressure, coercion, and the non-intervention line (00:17:02) Venezuela policy and the specter of escalation (00:28:24) Law, power, and the South China Sea  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Christian Esguerra and ICC Assistant to Counsel Kristina Conti talk about updates in the former president's case at The Hague.

Original Air Date: 6/25/25 When it comes to foreign policy news this week, our cup runneth over. Between the confusing narratives surround the US strikes on Iran and a strangely successful NATO summit in The Hague, the administration has had its hands full. Thankfully, David Rothkopf is joined by Gen. Doug Lute, Marc Polymeropoulos, Kori Schake, and Rosa Brooks to make sense of the news and help us understand what comes next.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Original Air Date: 6/25/25 When it comes to foreign policy news this week, our cup runneth over. Between the confusing narratives surround the US strikes on Iran and a strangely successful NATO summit in The Hague, the administration has had its hands full. Thankfully, David Rothkopf is joined by Gen. Doug Lute, Marc Polymeropoulos, Kori Schake, and Rosa Brooks to make sense of the news and help us understand what comes next.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Game Exercise: Close your eyes and follow along with an entire Chess game using the audio below. On each move, try to conceptualize the position clearly and understand how it has changed. Try to follow the game until the end to stretch the amount of moves you can see ahead. To learn more about Don't Move Until You See It and get the free 5-day Conceptualizing Chess Series, head over to https://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/conceptualization PGN for today's exercise: Euwe vs Przepiorka (The Hague, 1928) 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bxc4 e6 5. O-O a6 6. d4 Nbd7 7. Qe2 b5 8. Bd3 c5 9. a4 c4 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. e4 Be7 12. Nbd2 Qc7 13. e5 Nd5 14. Ne4 Nb4 15. Bb1 Qc6 16. Re1 Nb6 17. axb5 axb5 18. Rxa8+ Bxa8 19. Bg5 Bf8 20. b3 cxb3 21. Rc1 Nc4 22. d5 Nxd5 23. Nd4 Qb7 24. Nxb5 Qxb5 25. Rxc4 Qb7 26. Ra4 Bb4 27. Qd3 h6 28. Bd2 Be7 29. Ra5 f5 30. exf6 Nxf6 31. Nxf6+ Bxf6 32. Qg6+ Ke7 33. Be3 Rc8 34. f3 Qb4 35. Ra7+ Bb7 36. Kf2 Rc7 37. Qd3 Rd7 38. Qg6 Bd4 39. Kg3 Bxe3 40. Qxg7+ Kd8 41. Qh8+ Kc7 42. Be4 Bxa7 0-1

Ho ho ho! Welcome to a merry Episode 077 of Deeper Sounds of Nairobi—the ultimate Christmas Edition, recorded amidst the festive lights and winter chill of The Hague, Netherlands. World-renowned DJ Jack Rooster brings you a heartwarming sonic celebration, blending soulful Afro-house rhythms, pulsating Amapiano grooves, and deep electronic vibes with a sprinkle of holiday magic. This mix captures the joy of the season while immersing you in Africa's vibrant musical heartbeat, from uplifting anthems to introspective beats that evoke unity and cheer across borders.In true Deeper Sounds spirit, we're shining a spotlight on Kenya's exceptional talents, with standout contributions from Wendy Kay on the enchanting "Hai Miss (Just Bee U Mix)" and Tina Ardor, who graces two tracks: the healing vibes of "The Healing (Just Bee U Mix)" featuring Lunga Baainar and the regal "Malkia." These Kenyan gems add an authentic East African flair, weaving local narratives into the global dancefloor tapestry.True to form, this episode draws from all corners of the continent, showcasing Africa's boundless creativity—from South Africa's Amapiano powerhouses like Babalwa M x Stixx, MR SHANE SA, Da Muziqal Chef, Bee-Bar, Dj Jim Mastershine, and Thakzin, to Angola's DJEFF infusing Afro-Tech energy, and Uganda's Joshua Baraka delivering a high-energy Drum & Bass remix. We even venture beyond with international touches from the US's Ananda Project for those nostalgic Christmas classics and France's Shonky for a dub remix flair—proving that Africa's sounds resonate worldwide, uniting us in rhythm and holiday spirit.Whether you're cozied up by the fire or dancing under the mistletoe, let this 077 Christmas mix transport you. Tune in, turn up, and spread the deeper sounds of joy! #DeeperSoundsOfNairobi #EUTour Turn it up, let the music take over, and enjoy the journey.

The coalition talks grind on as the three parties decamp to Prince Bernhard's former military lodge. Volodymyr Zelenskyy unveils plans in The Hague to rebuild Ukraine with the proceeds of frozen Russian assets. Commercial pilots in the skies over Curaçao play Russian roulette with the US Air Force as the Venezuelan crisis escalates. Robin van Persie is feeling the pressure as Feyenoord lose two crucial matches in a week. And Femke Halsema wants to tone down the Koningsdag revelry in the capital. 10 Dutch football clubs with really ridiculous names: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2015/10/10-dutch-football-clubs-with-really-ridiculous-names/

Unpacking the pressures of early specialisation in ballet - how we can protect young dancers' physical and emotional wellbeing while nurturing a lifelong love of dance. ___ My Instagram! @thebalancedballerina Community Instagram! @balancedballerinas Facebook - Balanced Ballerinas And join our BB Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/balancedballerinas/ My Signature 12 Week Adult Ballet Course: https://www.balancedballerinas.com/12weekadultballetcourse The Marketing Blueprint For Dance Teachers & Studio Owners: https://www.balancedballerinas.com/TMB www.balancedballerinas.com

Chevron has been awarded $220 Million in the Ecuadoran Amazon pollution case. The award comes from the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, part of Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. From 1964-1992, Texaco polluted thousands of acres of Amazonian rainforest and poisoned its residents. In 1993, those residents took Texaco to court. In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco and took its debts (including the billions it owes Amazonian residents). In 2011, an Ecuadoran court awarded the residents $9.5 billion in damages for the pollution and poisoning. Since then, Chevron has waged a legal and public relations against the Indigenous people of the Amazon and their lawyers. This award is part of a 16 year process through the ISDS system. In our latest, Scott talks with Paul Paz y Mino (@paulpaz.bsky.social) about Chevron's history in Ecuador and this case. Bio// Paul Paz y Mino- Deputy Director at Amazon Watch.Paul has lived in Chiapas, Mexico and Quito, Ecuador, promoting human rights and community development and working directly with Indigenous communities. ----------------------

Volodymyr Zelensky has been in Berlin discussing peace proposals with the US, and he says they will be ready to present to Russia ‘within days'.Today, he addressed European leaders The Netherlands' House of Representatives in The Hague.We also discuss why Italy has joined Belgium in its opposition to the EU's plan to send €210 billion of Russia's frozen state assets to Ukraine.Victoria and Vitaly are joined by BBC's international editor Jeremy Bowen to discuss why there is good reason to remain wary of an imminent robust peace deal.Today's episode is presented by Victoria Derbyshire and Vitaly ShevchenkoThe producers were Laurie Kalus and Julia Webster. The technical producer was Jonny Hall. The series producer is Chris Flynn. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.Email Ukrainecast@bbc.co.uk with your questions and comments. You can also send us a message or voice note via WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram to +44 330 1239480You can join the Ukrainecast discussion on Newscast's Discord server here: tinyurl.com/ukrainecastdiscord

The concept of the digital twin is perhaps the centerpiece of digital transformation when it comes to the industrial enterprise. Think about it: What if the same digital model used to optimize the design of an industrial facility or other complex machine lived on in the form of a continuously current simulation that could optimize the real-time performance of the system over its entire lifecycle? According to Christian Salazar, portfolio manager for Honeywell Process Solutions, such is the promise of Honeywell's Digital Prime offering.  Control's Keith Larson caught up with Salazar at the company's recent users group meeting in The Hague, Netherlands, to discuss how Digital Prime brings together all of the connected offerings within Honeywell Process Solutions to deliver real-time performance insights to its customers.

Dean Hague is a Farmer on Tara Station, near Mount Hope. Alongside his wife, Jayde, and their kids, Dean has been continuing a century-old legacy of cattle raising and farming. In this episode, Dean explains the composition of his 98 thousand acre property: the merinos and dorpers, mixed farming, stud cattle, and cereal cropping. He discusses the exclusion fence project, the results so far in keeping his resources safe, the current status, and the small struggles he faces as a local leader. Finally, he breaks down the animals in the farm, the studs and their history, working with dogs, and a comparison between goat and sheep. Resources and links: Rockingham Santas Website Rockingham Santas on Facebook Nominate a Mate: If you'd like to nominate a mate (or yourself) as a potential future guest on the podcast, you can do so here: Nominate a Mate for 'Seeds for Success'. Connect: Central West LLS website Central West LLS on Facebook Central West LLS on X Central West LLS on YouTube The views contained in this podcast series are not necessarily endorsed by Central West Local Land Services. Listeners are advised to contact their local office to discuss their individual situation. This show is produced in collaboration with Wavelength Creative. Visit wavelengthcreative.com for more information.

Send us a message! Really!This week on the Get More Smarter Podcast, the State of Colorado lost a giant after State Senator Faith Winter tragically passed in a car accident, leaving a huge orange and blue void in the State Capitol and in so many of our hearts. We remember a state lawmaker who wasn't one of 100 lawmakers, she was one of one. Then, the Secretary of War Crimes is earning his new title by defending the wanton murder of random boaters in the Caribbean Sea...until people point out that that's actually a war crime. Then, Lock Her Up or FREE TINA? The President of the United States, who clearly doesn't understand or care how laws, the constitution, or our Republican form of Government works STILL has thoughts about one of his election conspiracy lackeys who was found guilty by a jury of her peers in one of the reddest counties in Colorado for hacking her own election equipment trying to prove the big lie was the truth. Then, is affordability a hoax? This $700 receipt from Costco has thoughts. Later, a Republican State Representative says the quiet part out loud, in case you were still somehow under the impression that those folks were there to try and make any laws. And finally, we check in with our 8th favorite member of Congress from Colorado to see how the various obvious and falsifiable lies he's been telling all year are working out for him. That's it for this episode! If you loved watching and/or listening to it as much as we loved recording it, you can thank us by subscribing to the pod wherever you listen, following us over on New Old Twitter AKA Bluesky, subscribing to our shiny new channel on YouTube, smashing that subscribe button on our Substack, and sharing this episode with your friends, your enemies, and your 8th favorite Member of Congress from Colorado! THANK YOU so much for listening, and we'll see you next time!

The emergence of artificial intelligence in the industrial automation space is elevating the role of the control system from simply executing operator commands to providing expert guidance to human operators. At Honeywell, they call this Digital Cognition, and at the company's recent users group meeting in The Hague, Netherlands, Control's Keith Larson had a chance to talk with Jason Urso, chief technology officer for industrial automation, as well as Peter Davis, director of engineering for Honeywell Process Solutions, about how today's control systems are helping even relatively inexperienced operators achieve their facilities' best performance yet.

OPINION: The long game at The Hague | Dec. 8, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Pete Hegseth trolls and passes blame over lawless boat strikes. Trump falls hard, both asleep and in the polls. Mike Johnson tries to skirt the ladies of the GOP, while Kash Patel can't help but jacket. Trixie Mattel gets Lovett's house in order, and all Aparna Nancherla wants for Christmas is to sit still as we end our festive evening with a full color glossy spread of this year's Lovett or Leave It gift guide. This holiday season, gift someone a Friends of the Pod subscription or treat yourself. Learn more at crooked.com/friends. Subscribing is the best way to support independent progressive media. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

#526 Be a part of the show @ nonetakenpod.com NONE TAKEN IS A SHOW ABOUT COMEDY AND CURRENT EVENTS

Check out CrabDiving radio podcast Monday!

Join us to celebrate the federal trial bench and to hear from Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, as she describes her path from prosecuting street crime in the District of Columbia US Attorney's Office, to prosecuting hate crimes at the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, to prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, to serving as Chief Hearing Officer at the New York Stock Exchange and General Counsel of New York City's Office of Administrative Trials and hearings, and more. Judge Kuo reflects on how each of these positions prepared her for the next, and her practical perspective on how every day can be a good day in court.

NEWS: Sara Duterte returns to The Hague after dad fails to win release | Dec. 3, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Sistas, Let's Talk is Sabina Moce is only 24, but for the past decade the young Fijian woman has been a passionate advocate for people with disability.  Sabina was born with albinism and growing up in Fiji with the condition led to bullying and exclusion from her community. This inspired her to speak up for those who aren't always given a voice. ABC Radio Australia's Sistas Let's Talk celebrates three young women who, like Sabina are advocates and ambassadors for causes they feel strongly about.  Host Natasha Meten also meets environmental activist AnnMary Raduva from Fiji and Save the Children Ambassador on Climate Vepaiamele, who at just 16 was the youngest member of a delegation from Vanuatu to visit the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2024. a show for women across the Pacific region.

This episode invites you to a conversation Ulrike Lühe has with Ahmed Abofoul, international human rights lawyer at the Palestinian NGO Al-Haq. Speaking from his deep experience documenting grave violations against Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Ahmed reveals the challenges and stakes of building an evidentiary record amid protracted conflict and state obstruction. The methodological rigor of Al-Haq's evidence collection—including on-the-ground fieldwork, open-source investigations, and advanced digital tools employed in a joint project with Forensic Architecture—ensures their documentation is admissible in courts and withstands political pressure and scrutiny. Ahmed reflects on the contextualising of discrete violations within broader patterns of occupation and apartheid is essential for understanding and legally characterising the situation. While digititilisation enhances accessibility and verification, he reminds us that it brings unique risks under occupation, requiring careful balance between transparency and the protection of sources and witnesses. About: Ahmed Abofoul is a Gaza-born international lawyer and Senior Legal Researcher and Advocacy Officer at Al-Haq, a leading Palestinian human rights organisation based in Ramallah. Now based in The Hague, he specialises in documenting violations of international law and advocating before global accountability mechanisms. With extensive field and legal expertise, Abouful is recognised for his meticulous work supporting justice for Palestinians. More Information: Al Haq home page / Forensic Architecture Investigation Unit / Forensic Architecture home page The 3-part series “Can the record be trusted?” explores the prospects and challenges of human rights documentation and archives in the digital age, with speakers from an international expert workshop that took place at Queens University Belfast in November 2024.

In dieser Folge übernachten Jenny, Malte und Kollege Konrad im VOCO The Hague – einem modernen Stadthotel in einem historischen Bankgebäude. International, stylisch und perfekt gelegen für alle, die Den Haag entdecken wollen.

Dick Advocaat sparks scenes of jubilation on Curaçao and the world's shortest open top bus tour after the Caribbean nation reaches the World Cup for the first time. Back in The Hague, Rob Jetten and Henri Bontenbal get bogged down on nitrogen policy, while Dilan Yeşilgöz serves coffee with humble pie to Hans Wijers. Groningen reels from its biggest earthquake in six years while economic affairs minister Vincent Karremans calms the storm that blew up in China over the Nexperia takeover. And the US ambassador rules out restoring a panel commemorating black American servicemen who buried the bodies of their comrades in Limburg during WWII.

This week on Sinica, I welcome back Finbarr Bermingham, the Brussels-based Europe correspondent for the South China Morning Post, about the Nexperia dispute — one of the most revealing episodes in the global contest over semiconductor supply chains. Nexperia, a Dutch-headquartered chipmaker owned by Shanghai-listed Wingtech, became the subject of extraordinary government intervention when the Netherlands invoked a Cold War-era emergency law to seize temporary control of the company and suspend its Chinese CEO. Finbarr's reporting, drawing on Dutch court documents and expert sources, has illuminated the tangled threads of this story: preexisting concerns about governance and technology transfer, mounting U.S. pressure on The Hague to remove Chinese management, and the timing of the Dutch action on the very day the U.S. rolled out its affiliate rule. We discuss China's retaliatory export controls on chips packaged at Nexperia's Dongguan facilities, the role of the Trump-Xi meeting in Busan in unlocking a temporary thaw, and what this case reveals about Europe's agonizing position between American pressure and Chinese integration in global production networks.4:34 – Why the "Europe cracks down on Chinese acquisition" framing was too simple 6:17 – The Dutch court's extraordinary tick-tock of events and U.S. lobbying 9:04 – The June pressure from Washington: divestment or the affiliate list 10:13 – Dutch fears of production know-how relocating to China 12:35 – The impossible position: damned if they did, damned if they didn't 14:46 – The obscure Cold War-era Goods Availability Act 17:11 – CEO Zhang Xuezheng and the question of who stopped cooperating first 19:26 – Was China's export control a state policy or a corporate move? 22:16 – Europe's de-risking framework and the lessons from Nexperia 25:39 – The fragmented European response: Germany, France, Hungary, and the Baltics 30:31 – Did Germany shape the response behind the scenes? 33:06 – The Trump-Xi meeting in Busan and the resolution of the crisis 37:01 – Will the Nexperia case deter future European interventions? 40:28 – Is Europe still an attractive market for Chinese investment? 41:59 – The Europe China Forum: unusually polite in a time of tenterhooksPaying it forward: Dewey Sim (SCMP diplomacy desk, Beijing); Coco Feng (SCMP technology, Guangdong); Khushboo Razdan (SCMP North America); Sense Hofstede (Chinese Bossen newsletter)Recommendations: Finbarr: Chokepoints by Edward Fishman; Underground Empire by Henry Farrell and Abe Newman; "What China Wants from Europe" by John Delury (Engelsberg Ideas) Kaiser: The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan and Milady (2023 French film adaptation)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In hour three of the Chase and Big Joe Show, the guys bring up the QOD, asking viewers what their best celebrity encounter is. The guys speak with Nic Hague about the Nashville Predators' time in Sweden, team bonding, and so much more. The guys close out the show with their usual celebrity birthday competition. 

The guys speak with Nic Hague about the Nashville Predators' time in Sweden, team bonding, and so much more.

Join Annie Sargent and Elyse Rivin as they dive deep into the tragic and brilliant life of Vincent van Gogh. This episode isn't just about his iconic paintings—it's about the man behind the masterpieces. Elyse, with her deep knowledge of art history and her gift for storytelling, guides us through Van Gogh's tumultuous journey. From his early struggles in the Netherlands to his transformative years in France, we explore how his experiences shaped his art—and how his art, in turn, shaped the world. Listen to this episode ad-free Van Gogh's life was marked by failure, rejection, and mental health struggles. Elyse explains how these challenges fueled his creativity. As a young man, he tried—and failed—at careers as an art dealer, a preacher, and even a Bible translator. His family didn't know what to do with him, and his father even considered sending him to a mental hospital. But it was his brother, Theo, who became his lifeline. Theo provided financial and emotional support, allowing Vincent to focus on painting. This support gave him the freedom to experiment, leading to the bold, vibrant style we associate with him today. Paris was a turning point for Van Gogh. Elyse paints a vivid picture of his time there, living in Montmartre, meeting artists like Toulouse-Lautrec and Pissarro, and discovering new techniques. He hated the city at first, but over time, he began to embrace its energy. His move to Arles was another pivotal moment. He dreamed of creating an artists' colony there, but his relationship with Gauguin ended in disaster. Despite the chaos, this period was incredibly productive. He painted masterpieces like Starry Night Over the Rhône and Sunflowers. After his breakdown in Arles, Van Gogh was committed to an asylum in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. Elyse's account of this time is heartbreaking yet inspiring. He continued to paint, creating some of his most famous works, including Wheat Fields and more versions of Starry Night. His final days in Auvers-sur-Oise were marked by relentless painting and a tragic end. This episode isn't just about art—it's about humanity, perseverance, and the cost of genius. If you love stories that move you, this is a must-listen. Subscribe to Join Us in France on your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode. And if you're planning a trip to France, don't forget to check out Elyse's Toulouse Guided Walks for an unforgettable experience.  Table of Contents for this Episode [00:00:15] Introduction [00:00:31] Today on the podcast [00:01:03] Podcast supporters [00:01:33] Bootcamp 2026 [00:01:47] Magazine segment [00:02:25] Vincent Van Gogh with Elyse [00:03:38] Van Gogh's Life in France [00:04:57] The Universal Appeal of Van Gogh's Art [00:05:53] Why do people love his work? [00:09:30] Early Life and Family Background [00:13:49] Struggles with Mental Health and Career Choices [00:14:20] Moving to The Hague [00:16:09] Moving to London [00:21:06] Moving to Paris [00:23:26] Back to England [00:28:04] Returning home [00:28:55] The Decision to Become an Artist [00:29:24] Early Artistic Endeavors and Family Support [00:37:18] Van Gogh's Time in Paris [00:38:38] Van Gogh's Literary Influences [00:39:23] Return to Holland and Artistic Evolution [00:40:28] Personal Struggles and Relationships [00:42:06] Paris and Artistic Friendships [00:45:02] The Move to Arles [00:47:24] The Yellow House and Artistic Breakthrough [00:52:53] Mental Health Struggles and Saint-Rémy [00:59:11] Final Days in Auvers-sur-Oise [01:04:27] Legacy and Impact [01:09:40] Copyright More episodes about art in France #VanGogh, #VincentVanGogh, #ArtHistory, #StarryNight, #Sunflowers, #PostImpressionism, #FrenchArt, #ArtLovers, #ArtistsLife, #TragicGenius, #JoinUsInFrance, #FrancePodcast, #TravelFrance, #FrenchCulture, #ExploreFrance, #DiscoverFrance, #FranceTravelTips, #RealFrance, #Francophile, #FranceAdventures

Home Sweet Home; Lessons From Processing Those 2B Email Addresses; I Spoke at Europol in The Hague; Operation Endgame 3.0; Sponsored by Malwarebytes https://www.troyhunt.com/weekly-update-478/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

However you pronounce his name, one thing is for certain: Van Gogh made made his mark on the world.But how did he interact with the world around him? From his relationship with a sex worker in the Hague to his time at the asylum in the south of France.Joining Kate today is Teio Meedendorp, Senior Researcher at the Van Gogh Museum, to help us get to know this complex man better.*TW: This episode contains references to self harm and suicide.*This episode was edited by Tim Arstall and produced by Stuart Beckwith. The senior producer was Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.Betwixt the Sheets: History of Sex, Scandal & Society is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Just when it seemed that we might enjoy a lull with the ceasefire, a fresh scandal overtakes the public sphere in Israel. This one is a homegrown domestic mess but it could lead to far reaching, international consequences. In July, 2024, allegations of prisoner abuse at Sde Teiman prison in southern Israel began to surface. This is the prison where detainees captured in the Gaza Strip were held. Then a video - purporting to show physical abuse by IDF soldiers in the prison - was released. The video, in fact, is very grainy and does not show what has been suggested. Nevertheless, when it was leaked an international uproar ensued. Several IDF soldiers were indicted on serious criminal charges but it is unclear exactly what they pertain to.The indictments of IDF reservists sparked serious riots in Israel, when civilians broke into two IDF bases. A series of probes within the legal system were conducted, and we didn't hear much more - until Wednesday, October 29. On that day, the top lawyer in the IDF - Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi - was put on leave. Two days later she resigned and admitted, in writing, that she had leaked the video. So now we have a leak and cover up at the highest levels. During the last week there has been high drama in this case. Yerushalmi disappeared for a few hours - causing major alarm. Her phone disappeared and was found five days later in the sea. Incredibly, it still worked. She was held in custody for five days and then released to house arrest. Tonight she is in hospital following an overdose and what appears to be a suicide attempt. Everything about this case is sensational and horrible; the personal suffering and indignity and the profound implications for the justice system in Israel. We discuss it all with former IDF MAG lawyer, Ben Wahlhous, who now works as an attorney in private practice in Israel. Wahlhous explains the role of the unit and what is concerning about this case. He also puts it into perspective - making clear that this case demonstrates how strong and ethical the Israeli justice system remains.Because the facts of this case are so - complicated - and important to understand….and there is so much going on, I have divided this podcast into four parts:Part 1 - Introduction and The Facts 00:00 - 14:25Part 2 - Interview with Ben Wahlhous, attorney and former lawyer in IDF legal unit - MAG 14:26 - 41:39Part 3 - Update on the Facts Current to the evening of Sunday, November 9 41:40-44:28Part 4 - A Little Levity - An iPhone Experiment Conducted on a Top Political Analysis Show 44:29 - endShow your support for STLV at buymeacoffee.com/stateoftelavivPodcast NotesBen Wahlhaus served for many years as an officer in the IDF's International Law Department. He has been a member of Israel's defense team at The Hague against South Africa's allegations of genocide, advised on Israel's peace treaties and agreements, and appeared in international media explaining the IDF's commitment to international law. Today Ben serves in the International Law Department as a reserve duty officer, and works in private practice.State of Tel Aviv is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.stateoftelaviv.com/subscribe

Find the Blunder Exercise: The audio will lead you through a series of moves from the beginning of a game. One player will blunder and the other will not punish them for it. Can you find the blunder and the best punishment? To learn more about Don't Move Until You See It and get the free 5-day Conceptualizing Chess Series, head over to https://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/conceptualization PGN for today's exercise: Adapted from the game Jacobson vs Hoenlinger (Teh Hague, 1928). 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. O-O Nbd7 9. Rc1 c5 10. Qe2 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Nd5 12. Bxe7 Nxc3 13. Rxc3 Qxe7 14. Bb5 Nf6 15. dxc5 Ne4 16. Rc2 Nxc5 17. b4 Ne4 18. a3 Rac8 19. Rfc1 Rxc2 20. Rxc2 Qf6 21. Nd4 e5 22. Nb3 Ng5 23. Nd2 Qg6 24. e4 Nxe4 25. Bd3 Nc3 26. Qf1 Qh6 27. Qe1 e4 28. Bf1 e3 29. Qxe3 Qxe3 30. fxe3 Rc8 * And the answer is... 26... Ne2+ 27. Bxe2 (27. Kh1 Qxd3) 27... Qxc2

It's News Day Tuesday on the Majority Report On today's program Ding-dong Dick Cheney's dead. Unfortunately, he avoided the Hague but let's not let that stop us from celebrating. Twitch streamer, Hasan Piker is in studio with Sam and Emma to wrap up the week's news. They discuss the upcoming elections, the state of the two parties and the beef between the heritage foundation, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro & Nick Fuentes. In the Fun Half: H. Jon Benjamin accidentally calls into the show while phone banking for Andrew Cuomo. Hasan, Sam and Emma continue the conversation on the government shutdown. Brett Cooper uses racist Ai generated videos of black women upset over losing SNAP benefits. All that and a whole lot more.   The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: DELETEME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/MAJORITY and use promo code MAJORITY at checkout. SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com

The Trump administration says it will restart SNAP food benefits for the nearly 42 million Americans that receive them, but that it will pay out only half the amount people normally get. A federal judge ruled that the government must continue funding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits on an emergency basis after the food assistance program ran out of money this weekend. We get the latest from NPR's Jennifer Ludden. Then, as some Head Start early learning programs close across the country due to the government shutdown, we check in with how the community is coming together to keep doors open for a few hundred low-income children in Florida. Then, on Monday, International Criminal Court prosecutors at The Hague said they are collecting evidence of alleged mass killings and rapes in Sudan. The New York Times' Declan Walsh joins us.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Prof. Joongi Kim, Yonsei University From Seoul to The Hague, from the classroom to the tribunal — this week's guest has seen it all. We sit down with Dr. Joongi Kim, Professor of Law at Yonsei University and a leading figure in the development of arbitration across Asia and beyond. In this wide-ranging conversation, Dr. Kim shares: His journey from studying in the U.S. to shaping Korea's arbitration landscape What “K-Arbitration” means and why the world should take notice His perspective on transparency, legitimacy, and reform in ISDS Reflections on mentorship, teaching, and lessons learned from his students Why diversity of thought — not just geography — is essential for the next era of arbitration

Most of us have some level of experience with watch retailers and ADs from a customer perspective. However, few watch enthusiasts can claim to have worked behind the counter, let alone owned a watch shop. Today, Nacho and Thomas are joined by Gerard, a long-time Fratello team member and former owner of Horloge Platform Nederland, a watch boutique based in The Hague. The boutique has long since shut its doors, but Gerard still has plenty of stories to share. He gives his perspective on how he first got into the retail side of watches, what it was like to deal with customers and brands alike, how online retail worked in the early days, and more.

Anna Holligan, Journalist in the Hague, reports on the General Election in the Netherlands.

We're joined by William Hague for the latest in our series looking at how the biggest elections in recent political history were won - and how they were lost.We go inside the Tory campaign, in which Hague's Conservative Party tried to convince the nation it was time for a common sense revolution - and ended up resembling the protester punched in the head by John Prescott.From foot and mouth to Sharon Storer, from Thatcher announcing 'The mummy returns' to Oliver Letwin going into hiding, the team get under the skin of the campaign and ask why it couldn't make a dent in Tony Blair's popularity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Silicon Bites Ep259 - Day 1,336 - 2025-10-21 | Why the Budapest summit won't happen and why “peace” is still the last thing that Vladimir Putin has on his mind. It's Day 1,336 of Russia's criminal war against Ukraine.Why the Budapest summit won't happen (and what that really tells us). After last week's Trump–Putin call, the White House floated a rapid “peace” summit in Budapest. Since then: no date, no itinerary, no pre-meet. Russia's line hasn't budged; Europe is hardening around a different baseline; and the logistics around Putin entering European airspace are politically toxic. News just in, Poland warns that Putin risks being diverted to The Hague if he attempts to overfly European countries that are prepared to enforce the ICC warrants against Putin. What changed in 72 hours? The Kremlin says the “timing is unclear,” and Dmitry Peskov stressed you can't “postpone something that hasn't been set in stone,” adding the whole thing would need “serious preparation.” (That's Kremlin-speak for: we're not committing – in fact we're chickening out. This thing isn't going to happen.) (The Moscow Times)----------SOURCES: Reuters — Europeans say battle lines must be start point for talks (Oct 21, 2025)https://www.reuters.com/world/european-leaders-issue-statement-backing-trumps-ukraine-ceasefire-position-2025-10-21/Reuters — Russia says its terms unchanged since August; next summit unclear (digest)https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-new-home-prices-fall-fastest-pace-11-months-2025-10-20/The Moscow Times — Kremlin: Budapest needs “serious preparation”; State Dept “durable resolution” phrasing (Oct 20)https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/10/20/trump-putin-to-hold-talks-in-budapest-kremlin-says-a90799Reuters — Poland warns on airspace/ICC arrest risk (Oct 21)https://www.reuters.com/world/poland-warns-putins-plane-hungary-summit-2025-10-21/Reuters — EU's Kallas on shadow fleet crackdown (Oct 20)https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-needs-more-measures-help-ukraines-energy-security-kallas-says-2025-10-20/Reuters — Kremlin on “why Budapest” (Oct 20)https://www.reuters.com/world/why-budapest-kremlin-says-orban-has-good-ties-with-both-trump-putin-2025-10-20/----------SILICON CURTAIN FILM FUNDRAISERA project to make a documentary film in Ukraine, to raise awareness of Ukraine's struggle and in supporting a team running aid convoys to Ukraine's front-line towns.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------This is super important. There are so many Battalions in Ukraine, fighting to defend our freedoms, but lack basics such as vehicles. These are destroyed on a regular basis, and lack of transport is costs lives, and Ukrainian territory. Autumn Harvest: Silicon Curtain (Goal€22,000)https://car4ukraine.com/campaigns/autumn-harvest-silicon-curtain----------SILICON CURTAIN LIVE EVENTS - FUNDRAISER CAMPAIGN Events in 2025 - Advocacy for a Ukrainian victory with Silicon Curtainhttps://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasOur events of the first half of the year in Lviv, Kyiv and Odesa were a huge success. Now we need to maintain this momentum, and change the tide towards a Ukrainian victory. The Silicon Curtain Roadshow is an ambitious campaign to run a minimum of 12 events in 2025, and potentially many more. Any support you can provide for the fundraising campaign would be gratefully appreciated. https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasWe need to scale up our support for Ukraine, and these events are designed to have a major impact. Your support in making it happen is greatly appreciated. All events will be recorded professionally and published for free on the Silicon Curtain channel. Where possible, we will also live-stream events.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------

HEADLINE: China's Coordinated Aggression in the South China Sea: Analyzing the Philippine Vessel Ramming Incident GUEST NAMES: John Batchelor (Host) and Jim Fanell, Retired US Navy Intelligence Officer 1000-WORD SUMMARY: The program featured an in-depth discussion between host John Batchelor and Jim Fanell, a retired United States Navy intelligence officer, focusing on a recent and troubling ramming incident in the contested waters of the South China Sea's Spratly Islands. This incident involved Chinese vessels deliberately ramming a Philippine resupply ship that was en route to a Philippine outpost, marking another escalation in the ongoing territorial disputes that have made the South China Sea one of the world's most volatile maritime flashpoints. Fanell provided expert analysis that fundamentally reframes how this incident should be understood. Rather than viewing it as an isolated action by an overzealous ship captain acting independently or a spontaneous confrontation that escalated beyond control, Fanell argues that the ramming was a carefully coordinated operation directed from the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party. This assessment carries significant implications for understanding China's strategic intentions and the level of state control exercised over what might otherwise appear to be tactical-level maritime incidents. The coordinated nature of the operation becomes evident when examining the composition and deployment of Chinese forces involved in the incident. Fanell detailed that the ramming was not carried out by a single vessel but was instead supported by a substantial flotilla of Chinese maritime assets. This included vessels from China's maritime militia—ostensibly civilian fishing vessels that operate under state direction and serve paramilitary functions—multiple Coast Guard cutters representing China's official law enforcement presence at sea, and significantly, a warship from the People's Liberation Army Navy, representing the direct involvement of China's military forces. This multi-layered deployment of assets from different organizational structures within China's maritime forces demonstrates a level of coordination and planning that could only originate from centralized command authority. The presence of military, paramilitary, and quasi-civilian forces operating in concert reveals a sophisticated strategy designed to apply overwhelming pressure while maintaining some degree of plausible deniability about the military nature of the confrontation. Fanell emphasized that this incident is not an isolated occurrence but rather part of a consistent and identifiable pattern of Chinese operations concentrated in several key areas of the South China Sea. He specifically mentioned Scarborough Shoal, Sandy Cay, and Second Thomas Shoal as focal points of these coordinated Chinese activities. Each of these locations represents a contested feature in the South China Sea where the Philippines maintains claims and, in some cases, physical presence through grounded vessels or small outposts that serve as territorial markers. Scarborough Shoal, located approximately 120 miles from the Philippine coast, has been under effective Chinese control since a 2012 standoff, despite lying well within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone as defined by international law. Second Thomas Shoal has become particularly contentious because the Philippines deliberately grounded a World War II-era vessel, the Sierra Madre, on the shoal in 1999 to serve as a permanent outpost. The vessel houses a small garrison of Philippine marines, and China has repeatedly attempted to prevent resupply missions to this outpost, creating recurring confrontations. The pattern Fanell describes reveals a strategy of incremental pressure designed to exhaust the Philippines' ability and willingness to maintain its presence in these disputed areas. By consistently interfering with resupply operations, China aims to make it prohibitively difficult, dangerous, and expensive for the Philippines to sustain its outposts, potentially forcing their eventual abandonment and allowing China to assert de facto control. Fanell's analysis places this aggressive maritime behavior within the broader context of China's strategic objectives in the South China Sea. The Chinese Communist Party's ultimate goal, according to Fanell, is to establish complete sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, despite the overlapping claims of multiple neighboring countries including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, and despite a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that rejected China's expansive claims as having no legal basis under international law. Control of the South China Sea would provide China with several strategic advantages. The region contains vital shipping lanes through which approximately one-third of global maritime trade passes, including substantial energy shipments to East Asian economies. The area is believed to contain significant oil and natural gas reserves, though estimates vary widely. Additionally, control of the South China Sea would extend China's defensive perimeter far from its mainland coast and provide greater ability to project power throughout the Indo-Pacific region. Fanell also contextualized the ramming incident within the current state of US-China relations, suggesting that China's aggressive actions are partly designed to apply pressure on the United States during a period of heightened economic tensions between the two powers. The United States has maintained that it has a national interest in preserving freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and has conducted regular "freedom of navigation operations" to challenge what it views as excessive Chinese maritime claims. The United States also maintains a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, though the precise circumstances under which this treaty would be invoked in response to incidents in disputed waters remains a subject of ongoing strategic ambiguity. The incident and Fanell's analysis raise critical questions about the trajectory of tensions in the South China Sea and the potential for escalation. If China continues to employ increasingly aggressive tactics, coordinated at the highest levels of government, the risk of a serious confrontation—whether with the Philippines directly or with the United States in its role as a treaty ally—increases substantially. The international community faces the challenge of responding to Chinese actions that systematically erode the rules-based international order while stopping short of the kind of overt military aggression that would trigger clear and immediate responses. 1939 REUBEN JAMES

Today, more than half the world's population live in cities – and as our numbers swell, so will our cities, especially those around the Pacific Rim, where it's predicted our largest megacities of 10 million plus will be situated. And herein lies an opportunity: 60% of the buildings needed for 2050 are not yet built.Could we shape our cities into places that are good for the climate and also good for our mental health? Can we design buildings and infrastructure that make green decisions easier and also help us deal with stress or depression?In a programme first broadcast in 2024, Jordan Dunbar hears about examples in the Netherlands and Egypt. Are there win-win options out there that can help the world deal with two of its biggest challenges?Contributors: Houssam Elokda -Urban Planner, with Happy Cities, Vancouver Sally Nabil - BBC Arabic Egypt Correspondent, Cairo Anna Holligan - BBC Correspondent, The Hague, NetherlandsProduction Team: Graihagh Jackson, Octavia Woodward, Brenda Brown Sound Design: Tom Brignell Editor: Simon WattsGot a question? Email us: theclimatequestion@bbc.com

President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss the future of the war in Ukraine (which Putin started). While Trump insisted Wednesday there would be “very severe consequences” if Putin doesn't agree to some kind of ceasefire, the Russian president has given no indication he plans to give up his goal of eventually taking over all of Ukraine. And Ukraine continues to insist it will not cede any of its territory to Russia. In short: The war is still at a stalemate, and the president of the United States wants to move the needle by hosting the aggressor — an international pariah who faces an arrest warrant on war crimes from the Hague – right here on American soil. Julia Ioffe, a founding member of Puck News and a long-time Russian politics expert, joins us to talk about the Alaska summit and what could come out of it.And in headlines: Trump suggested he may extend federal control of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department beyond the 30-day limit, a panel of appeals court judges opened the door for the White House to suspend or terminate billions in foreign aid funding, and fewer Americans say they're drinking alcohol.Show Notes:Pre-order Julia's book – https://tinyurl.com/2btnv3pkCall Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday