Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Sunday, September 06, 2020

Join us now at the IRC channel.

schestowitz__> Oh no, not at all. I included my correspondence with HR execs and my management, including but not limited to them thanking for me “removing their blinders and giving them a kick in the ass they needed.” 🤣.Sep 06 01:17
schestowitz__> Sep 06 01:17
schestowitz__> I’ll go dig them up one of these days when I feel like reminiscing 🤣Sep 06 01:17
schestowitz__I will study your postings and tweets this weekend, see if I can cover this myself as well. Pass along anything you find of relevance please.Sep 06 01:17
schestowitz__Regards,Sep 06 01:17
schestowitz__>Sep 06 01:19
schestowitz__> It’s a hell of a tool in my opinion.Sep 06 01:19
schestowitz__Do you have something related to this to leak to us?Sep 06 01:19
schestowitz__ 06 01:20
-TechrightsBN/ | How To Get Fired From Microsoft | Part 1 | by Mitchel Lewis | MediumSep 06 01:20
schestowitz__ 06 01:20
schestowitz__ 06 01:20
-TechrightsBN/ | How To Get Fired From Microsoft | Part 2 | by Mitchel Lewis | MediumSep 06 01:20
-TechrightsBN/ | How To Get Fired From Microsoft | Part 3 | by Mitchel Lewis | MediumSep 06 01:20
schestowitz__If you can mail me the expunged screenshots, we can repost with all the original material. We made the front page of Slashdot yesterday...Sep 06 01:38
*oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 06 06:09
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 06:09
schestowitz__x 06 08:35
-TechrightsBN/ | 'Linusgate': Debian Project Leaders Want To Ban Linus Torvalds For His Manners - SlashdotSep 06 08:35
schestowitz__# make sure it is clear /why/ these are being brought forth nowSep 06 08:35
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)Sep 06 09:14
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)Sep 06 09:14
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 09:16
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 09:16
*oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 06 12:22
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 12:22
schestowitz__ 06 13:00
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@BirgitC: "The Board pointed out that, on the shirt, the proposed mark [BORN IN THE USA] appears next to the phrase "Made IN… 06 13:00
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@BirgitC: "The Board pointed out that, on the shirt, the proposed mark [BORN IN THE USA] appears next to the phrase "Made IN… 06 13:00
schestowitz__"Sep 06 13:00
schestowitz__"The Board pointed out that, on the shirt, the proposed mark [BORN IN THE USA] appears next to the phrase "Made IN USA," in close proximity to other informational matter, reinforcing its informational significance."Sep 06 13:00
schestowitz__#trademark #USSep 06 13:00
schestowitz__"Sep 06 13:00
schestowitz__ 06 14:13
-TechrightsBN/ | The mirage of AI invention - nothing more than advanced trial and error? - The IPKatSep 06 14:13
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__Thursday, 3 September 2020 at 10:43:00 BSTSep 06 14:13
schestowitz__Perhaps it’s my age, but in assessing invention, I was taught that it could be “inspiration” or “perspiration”, and each was of equal value. Thus, is an AI “invention” not just an extreme end of the perspiration type? I personally think that an AI “inventor” is ruled out as it cannot assign rights or sign powers of attorney etc, and generally is not sentient.Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:13
schestowitz__Human rightsThursday, 3 September 2020 at 11:42:00 BSTSep 06 14:13
schestowitz__Please remember that at some point we will be debating whether AI requires human rights or not. At this point it is not an entity that has legal personhood, but we should not make quick judgements based on how clever or inspired it is. We do not judge less clever humans in this way. So the EPO wins on legal reasoning, but not on any sort of moral reasoning or based on ability. There was a time women could not vote because they Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__were judged on ability. I believe the analysis in your article is not correct because it does not really go into the depth of when an entity deserves personhood, which is a very complex matter, and risks a discrimination developing against AISep 06 14:13
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:13
schestowitz__UnknownThursday, 3 September 2020 at 11:50:00 BSTSep 06 14:13
schestowitz__I don't think the functioning of AlphaGo has been described correctly. Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__I am no IT expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the functioning of AI machines such as AlphaGo but more so such as Dr. Thaler's machines is that these are not simply algorithms that compute the data they receive according to a (human) given scheme - like the jet engine design algorithm - but instead on top of the data processing they also draw useful information from their own "experience" in order to Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__adjust and better their own functioning mechanism. Sep 06 14:13
schestowitz__Given the above, an AI and its outputs should not be considered the direct expression of the human who originally set it up - as would the jet engine algorithm be - and thus its creations might not be foreseeable beforehand and could be considered (or not) novel, inventive and useful. Does this mean that an AI can be an inventor? That is a good question. Should the AI be allowed to be considered as an inventor? There are good Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__reason to believe it should - and they are mainly the same reasons that broguth about patent protection in the first place.Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:14
schestowitz__RepliesSep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Rose HughesThursday, 3 September 2020 at 13:33:00 BSTSep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Thank you for your comment. This article received input from an AI expert who assures me that the description of AlphaGo, whilst simplified, is correct in its essence. Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__You are correct that Alpha go can be improved over time. But this is not because of some AI magic "on top of the data processing". The results of games of Go played using AlphaGo can be used to improve the algorithm by adding them to the data-set in which AlphaGo searches for moves. This process does not thereby elevate AlphaGo to a human level intelligence, and is not a technique that is unique to AI. Instead, it is a standard Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__way in which search algorithms are improved over time.Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__DBThursday, 3 September 2020 at 14:50:00 BSTSep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Many thanks for your kind reply. Do you know if this is also true of Dr. Thaler's machines? (i.e. that the machines' "experience" does not contribute to relevant changes in the functioning/nature of their underlying algorithm, apart from extending the machines' available data-set)Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__I find this to be a key element of understanding AI correctly and its implications for patent law. Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__If your point is correct for all kinds of AI (and indeed there are many different "kinds"), than I don't see how any inventiveness could be found at all in an AI inventor and I would totally agree with your article, considering that the process resulting in the machine's output was "programmed" beforehand by a human being.Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__On the contrary, shall an AI actually be able to change its own nature/functioning based on "experience" which is extraneous to any human being, than the process throughout which the output is reached (and of course the output itself) would be out of the scope of imagination of the human who created the machine (and perhaps of any other human) and thus could well be considered "inventive" (at least under human standards).Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Does the above make sense to you? I would love to hear your comments about this and if you have any further insights as to the functioning of these machines. Many thanks.Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Rose HughesFriday, 4 September 2020 at 09:19:00 BSTSep 06 14:14
schestowitz__Unfortunately, from the information provided by Dr Thaler, the AI experts I have consulted have no idea how DABUS is supposed to work (e.g. what is the data form of the inputs and outputs?). A peer-reviewed publication in a standard AI journal would be helpful, and would be standard for anyone wishing to commercialise AI (e.g. Google). However, such publications on DABUS have so far been lacking. It would be good to see the maths Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__and equations behind Dr Thaler's colourful descriptions. Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__For more on this see: 06 14:14
-TechrightsBN/ | The first AI inventor - IPKat searches for the facts behind the hype - The IPKatSep 06 14:14
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__:Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__The EPO decisions rely on trying to fit AI development into our existing boxes. It may simply be that new boxes are required. It is of course true that a machine cannot have a legal personality (yet, at any rate), but if that legalistic obstacle gets in the way of a logical assessment of technical contribution , maybe another route needs to be found? Are IP rights really a reward for "personal inspiration", or are they actually, Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__in many cases, a reward for financial investment?Sep 06 14:14
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:15
schestowitz__RepliesSep 06 14:15
schestowitz__MaxDreiThursday, 3 September 2020 at 14:59:00 BSTSep 06 14:15
schestowitz__I agree. Patent law is an invention, to stimulate innovation, to "promote the progress" of the useful arts. The legislator can write into the patent statute whatever we (society) choose. Should we incentivise the use of machines to invent non-obvious contributions in all fields of technology? Why not? Sep 06 14:15
schestowitz__As to ownership, and the execution of an instrument of assignment, we already designate "the employer" to be the inventor, ab initio, of an invention made by an employee. Why not deem the invention machine to be something employed by an employer, to make inventions, and allocate ownership accordingly.Sep 06 14:15
schestowitz__Already, in Europe, the devisor's identity can be kept off the public file at the Patent Office. Already, in a case of disputed ownership, only the aggrieved true owner can ask the court for satisfaction. So, given all of that, where is the problem, as the invention machines gradually get more and more artificially "intelligent"?Sep 06 14:15
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:15
schestowitz__ 06 14:20
-TechrightsBN/ | Shining the light on insufficiency (T 1285/15) - The IPKatSep 06 14:20
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:20
schestowitz__Attentive, the problem is that enablement is required at the filing date, not some time after publication. If is to be assumed that the trade marked product is commercially available at the filing date, there is no enablement issue present. A clarity objection is the correct one.Sep 06 14:20
schestowitz__See more: amazonSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__ 06 14:21
-TechrightsBN/ | When reporting "trumps" copyright: the sad case of Declan Hainey - The IPKatSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__"It is of course caring of the BBC to go to such lengths to fulfil their obligation of public service broadcasting. It is of course necessary for the public to see the picture of a child who has been murdered so that they can understand the nature of the crime."Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__ 06 14:21
-TechrightsBN/ | Is the new world order of the English Supreme Court sustainable? - The IPKatSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Tuesday, 1 September 2020 at 08:58:00 BSTSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The thesis of this post is not clear to me, and as might be expected, I strongly disagree with Attentive Observer.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The effect of the UKSC decision is not to set the UK courts up as some kind of monopoly global arbiter. The decision itself is very clear on the fact. See for example paragraphs 66 and 67;Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__66. We turn to the submission (para 52 above) that the English courts are out of step with foreign courts in requiring an implementer to enter into a global licence in order to avoid an injunction for infringement of a national patent and in being prepared to determine the disputed terms of a global FRAND licence. Huawei suggests that the English courts are uniquely setting themselves up as a de facto global licensing tribunal.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__67. We are not persuaded by this submission. The Court of Appeal in the Unwired case (paras 59-74) analysed the cases which the parties had presented to the court and concluded that they did not support the contention that Birss J’s approach lost sight of the territorial nature of patents and did not accord with the approach taken in other jurisdictions. We agree. We recognise that Birss J has gone further than other courts haveSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__done thus far in his willingness to determine the terms of a FRAND licence which the parties could not agree, but that does not involve any difference in principle from the approach of courts in other jurisdictions. Otherwise his approach is consistent with several judgments in other jurisdictions, which, as this is a developing area of jurisprudence, we now examine briefly. The principles stated in those judgments contemplate Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__that, in an appropriate case, the courts in the relevant jurisdictions would determine the terms of a global FRAND licence.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__In other words, the UK courts are the first to deal with this problem, but any other court with jurisdiction would be able to take the same approach.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The sections from which AO selectively quotes are not dismissive of the Chinese courts' right or ability to make this decision, but are considering the actual state of present litigation in China. Again, they do not represent any claim to exclusivity.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The post above makes exactly the same, misleading, claim as AO. The UKSC did not "[confirm] that the U.K. is the appropriate forum for setting a FRAND rate", the UKSC said that the UK is an appropriate forum for resolving this and similar disputes. The colonialism comments in the last paragraph are entirely inappropriate.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__If the UKSC decision has raised a broader issue, it is in the failure of SSOs or the WTO to anticipate the problem of such disputes or provide a suitable forum. The UKSC has stepped into this space, for better or worse. But it has not planted a flag or claimed territory, and to say otherwise is a deliberate miscasting of the facts of the decision.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Attentive ObserverTuesday, 1 September 2020 at 21:04:00 BSTSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Dear C,Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__It is no surprise to me that you disagree with the blog and with myself. I would then say we should at least agree that we disagree. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The last § of the blog makes one thing abundantly clear: English courts have no international mandate and it is not up to one single country to set a global governance structure for FRAND rates.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__But that is exactly what has been done here, and your reply is mainly playing with words. I can agree with you that the UK courts are the first to deal with this problem, but any other court with jurisdiction would be in a position to take the same approach.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__And what would be the net result of this? An absolute mess! Other courts could come to different solutions, notably on the level of fees due. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Whether you like it or not, by this decision UK courts assume extra-territorial power. That the UK courts are a reasonable forum to resolve SEP disputes when there is a UK right is not at stake here, but they should limit themselves to their territory and not try to decide for the whole world. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Even if one considers that UK courts are AN appropriate forum for resolving this and similar disputes, it boils down that by pushing forward in the matter it has been done here, the whole exercise can be seen as to encourage forum shopping for UK courts in matter of SEP/FRAND disputes.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__In time of Brexit how can a UK court think it has the right to decide what is the licence level applicable within the EU? That is what the decision boils down to, and I would like to know what you think about this point.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Even if the decision is global, how will you enforce it? Brussels 2 is not any longer available, and Lugano should be revived for the UK. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__I can well see that some manufacturers will simply avoid the UK market, which is quite modest compared to the global telecom market. What will then be the gain for the British consumer? And then there will be no increase of SEP/FRAND litigation in UK! Brexit will not help at all, and in spite of all the announcements, the country will not benefit from it, but this is another story. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The colonialism comments in the last paragraph is not inappropriate. By pushing forward as they have done UK courts can easily be considered as a vector for neo-colonialism. On the basis of a (modest) territorial right, UK courts want to decide what is good for other countries. If this is not a form of colonialism, then I do not know what should be understood under this denomination. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The funny thing is that although Huawei will be banned from the UK market for supplying 5G equipment, I have read somewhere, sorry I do not remember where, that Huawei is the largest SEP holder for the 5G technology! Tit for tat is on the doorstep.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__The whole problem of SEP/FRAND litigation should be tackled from another side. The whole discussions about SEP/FRAND licensing should be transferred not to a single jurisdiction or even a plurality of jurisdictions, but to standard setting organisations. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__ETSI members should wake up and give the whole business of SEP/FRAND to the organisation itself. I could well imagine a kind of clearing house within ETSI. Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__But then courts will not have a lot to say, and they will not like it. Everything possible will be made to avoid loss of jobs for courts and lawyers.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:21
schestowitz__CatnicWednesday, 2 September 2020 at 11:03:00 BSTSep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Dear AO,Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__It seems we actually agree on rather more than you think.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__- A SEP/FRAND resolution process is something that should be considered or handled by an SSO, but currently is not.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__- There are going to be disputes about the terms of FRAND licences, and in the absence of any central authority, a court somewhere is going to have to handle the disputes.Sep 06 14:21
schestowitz__Where we diverge is that - and I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here - is that you think that FRAND disputes should be resolved on a country-by-country basis. There's no ambiguity about jurisdiction: each court resolves the licence terms in its own country. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__However, this leads directly to the problem you say will follow a global FRAND licence determination, an absolute mess. "And what would be the net result of this? An absolute mess! Other courts could come to different solutions, notably on the level of fees due." The SEP system breaks down into a mess of country-by-country litigation and divergent licence agreements. Honestly, a law firm looking for lucrative business would be farSep 06 14:22
schestowitz__happier with your solution, all those expensive separate actions to fight.Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__The idea of SEPs being licensed as global portfolios is precisely to avoid this kind of splintering to the benefit of SEP holders and implementers, and the UKSC decision respects the intention and practice of ETSI.Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__Ironically, a simple solution would be for the SSOs to designate a court that hears disputes. It is absolutely normal and standard for international contracts to explicitly state which jurisdiction's laws and courts govern the agreement. Pick Switzerland or the Netherlands or anywhere really, make this a part of the SSO/SEP agreement, and the whole problem goes away. (See, I said it was basically a contractual issue).Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__ReplySep 06 14:22
schestowitz__Attentive ObserverFriday, 4 September 2020 at 09:36:00 BSTSep 06 14:22
schestowitz__Dear C.Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__I can confirm that you are not so far away as it looks at a glance. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__It confirms however my plea for the matter to be handled by SSO. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__They can decide whether a patent is indeed a SEP, and your proposal in deciding for a court in case of disputes is a good one. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__I am just wondering if UK courts are the right forum, mainly due to the fact that the UK market is relatively modest compared to the world market. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__It might well turn up that the decision might become a a Pyrhuss-style victory for this reason. Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__I would like to draw your attention to an article from IAM published today in Lexology:Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__ 06 14:22
-TechrightsBN/ | Despite last Wednesday's Supreme Court decision, the UK won't become the global hub for resolving FRAND disputes - LexologySep 06 14:22
schestowitz__An interesting read! Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__UK is not any longer in the EU and other jurisdictions within the EU might want to take over. I think here of Germany. here is a further link to Lexology:Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__ 06 14:22
-TechrightsBN/ | German FRAND Decision May Shape Global SEP Landscape - LexologySep 06 14:22
schestowitz__ 06 14:22
schestowitz__But we are living in interesting times!Sep 06 14:22
schestowitz__"Sep 06 14:22
*rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Sep 06 15:37
*rianne ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 15:37
*schestowitz__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 06 20:06
*schestowitz__ (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovellSep 06 20:07
*ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitz__Sep 06 20:07
schestowitz__Re: screenshotsSep 06 21:42
schestowitz__> Ill see what I can dig up. I have this nonsense on some old USB drives somewhere.Sep 06 21:42
schestowitz__Thanks, I will wait.Sep 06 21:42
schestowitz__Re: FSFE voting system video, Pope's message for DebianSep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> This guy gives a series of lectures on voting systems, one is dedicatedSep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> to FSFE:Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> 06 21:45
-TechrightsBN/ | Dictatorship (Voting System) - YouTubeSep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> This appears to be a reference to the debian-private disclosures:Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__> 06 21:45
-TechrightsBN/ | Pope Francis says gossip is 'a plague worse than Covid' | World news | The GuardianSep 06 21:45
schestowitz__"had to install the VPN client using the terminal. These sorts of things make it harder for people to use [GNU] Linux. Boo." Sep 06 21:45
schestowitz__Because you use proprietary software binaries, that's why.   Sep 06 21:45
-TechrightsBN/ | NYU VPN | Life on MSep 06 21:45

Generated by 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!