German Supreme Court

The initial decision—often called the VICOM decision after the applicant for the patent—was followed by further decisions of the Boards of Appeal that opened the way for the patenting of inventions implemented by means of computers. The reasoning behind these decisions has often been adopted by courts in other countries (not only in Europe, but elsewhere). The German Supreme Court, for example, has explicitly stated that the application of computers in chemistry or biology is acceptable patentable subject matter [14]. 

The President Mr. Prosecutor, is it your theory that this final judgment of the German Supreme Court establishes the relationship between Dynamit A.G. and Farben ... 

But even new and extensive scientific material evidence, advanced in order to reverse the decree of self-evidence, has been refused by the courts. In this context the Federal German Supreme Court decided in 1993 that even the refusal of motions to examine self-evidence, as one defense counsel proposed to do in an appeal document,341 is proper legal procedure due to the self-evidence of the Holocaust.139 The Holocaust, therefore, is a judicially safeguarded view of history which this decision renders completely untouchable. This represents an inquisition in its purest and highest degree, and a gross violation of the human rights to academic freedom and the freedom of expression and opinion. 

In criminal proceedings caused by crimes that are considered by the German authorities to have caused major violations of law and order, the trial is held immediately on the District Court level, i.e., on what normally is supposed to be the appeal level (the first level is the County Court). In such cases, the accused has only one trial during which evidence can be presented, that is, there is no appeal possible to the verdict of this court Only a so-called application for a revision of the verdict with the German Federal Supreme Court is possible, but such an application can only criticize errors of form (matters of law). The factual assertions of the deciding court, i.e., description and evaluation of evidence (matters of fact), will not be discussed anymore. Furthermore, it is usually the case that applications for a revision will be denied by the German Federal Supreme Court, if the defense is the only party to request it. 

On Jan. 19, 1996, the German Attorney General demanded that Germar Rudolf should spend 14 months behind bars for nothing other than this commentary. The German Federal Supreme Court concurred with this demand in a decision on March 7, 1996 (ref. 1 StR 18/96). 

The news reports of the local press on May 6, 1996, ran in the same direction after my application for a revision of the verdict was turned down by the German Federal Supreme Court. They hinted to the reader that the scientist Rudolf had been sentenced because of his expert report, which had come to an incorrect conclusion and thereby denied the Holocaust. It apparently did not interest anyone that the expert report had not been an issue at the trial. Naturally, the Boblinger... 

After his 14 months prison sentence was confirmed in March 1996 by the German Federal Supreme Court, and considering the prospect of perhaps even more severe convictions in several other pending crimi-... 

German Federal Supreme Court, ref. 5 StR 485/01, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, p. 2115, Neue Strafrechts-Zeitung 2002, p. 539. 

The Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Supreme Court] has confirmed the legality of such measures Ref. 1 StR 193/93. 

H. Langbein, op. cit. (note 154), v. 2, p. 864 the fact that witnesses were pressured was confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court, but was rejected as grounds for revision Criminal Division of the Federal Supreme Court, Ref StR 280/67. 

My family Jived in New York City, and there were no scientists in the family. My father was born in New York City, and was a Supreme Court judge in New York State. I was very close to him. My mother was born and raised in Belgium, where my grandfather was in the diamond business. The family is Jewish. On the day the Germans invaded Belgium, my grandfather was in London on a business trip. My mother and her family... 

Battle G (1921) The trials before the Leipsic (sic ) Supreme Court of Germans accused of war crimes. Va Law Rev 8 1-26... 

Rhodes (ref. 76) "Rules on alien patents," New York Times (20 Nov 1928), 16 several Section 10 (f) cases reached the Supreme Court together, including case no. 179, Farbwerke vormals Meister Lucius und Bruning, Deutsche Gold und Silher Scheide Anstalt vorm. Roessler, and Badische-Anilin und Soda-Fabrik v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and Walter O. Woods, as Treasurer of the United States, and also cases 180, 181,182, 271-174, in the Supreme Court of the United States, 1931. Unlike the German firms, some of the American importers for German chemical companies were able to collect seized assets under Section 10 (f). "Receipt and release of the H.A. Metz Laboratories, Inc.," 16 Jun 1931, RG 60, entry 114, box 750, case 9-17-10-12. 

Self-determination in the right to protect one s privacy was first judicially embraced by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht in 1983. The US Supreme court followed this trend by adopting the principle of privacy self-determination in DOJ V. Reporters Comm, for Freedom of the Press. ... 

---