Today I added a clean and editable version of the EPC articles to the downloads section. A similar version for the rules will follow someday. I started copying the official text from the EPO website already some time ago, yet never did anything with it so far. The text you find was made using the Google docs platform and is (as far as I've checked) free of any annotations or errors. You can download it in several forms and use it for further editing. Most probably this tool is a bit late for EQE 2010 sitters, yet for those considering doing "D" in 2011 this may be of use.
Anyway, the link below should give you "read-only" access to the Google docs document. Please let me know if the link does not work properly and/or if there are still some errors in this document (which is unlikely by the way...)
As mentioned before a similar document with the Rules will follow someday, probably beginning 2010. Again, if you like to help, let me know, see also here.
Click here for the document
18/11/2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice - thanks!
ReplyDeleteNot sure about being too late for 2010 EQE sitters; I'm taking them in 2010 and haven't started studying yet! Most people in my firm start preparing in December or January.
Really good. I noticed a few very minor formatting inconsistencies:
ReplyDelete- Article 25 still contains a footnote (all others have been deleted)
- Article 87 is missing a tab in the title
- the (a), (b) etc. sub-points in Articles 55 and 135 are not marked-up in red.
These are all pretty trivial points, but since it is so good otherwise it would seem a shame not to fix these also.
Thanks!
Fixed !
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand what this is for/how it differs from other EPC versions?
ReplyDelete- Megan
The text is identical. The difference is that you can download it as text document so you can use it for further editing/annotating. I've seen several people using their own annotated copy. Of course if you are happy with for example "Visser" (like I was/am) then this document is not so useful, I agree.
ReplyDelete