(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| *acer-box____ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Jan 20 03:19 | |
| *acer-box____ (~acer-box@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:d5eb:4ede:9c6f:74f2) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:19 | |
| *acer-box____ has quit (Changing host) | Jan 20 03:19 | |
| *acer-box____ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:19 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box____ | Jan 20 03:19 | |
| *acer-box____ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) | Jan 20 03:45 | |
| *acer-box____ (~acer-box@2a00:23c4:c3aa:7d01:d5eb:4ede:9c6f:74f2) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:46 | |
| *acer-box____ has quit (Changing host) | Jan 20 03:46 | |
| *acer-box____ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 03:46 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box____ | Jan 20 03:46 | |
| schestowitz__ | https://www.securityweek.com/eu-regulator-hackers-‘manipulated’-stolen-vaccine-documents | Jan 20 05:23 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.securityweek.com | EU Regulator: Hackers ‘Manipulated’ Stolen Vaccine Documents | SecurityWeek.Com | Jan 20 05:23 | |
| *asusbox2 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 20 09:52 | |
| *asusbox2 (~rianne@host81-152-237-130.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 09:52 | |
| *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Jan 20 09:57 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-152-237-130.range81-152.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 09:58 | |
| *acer-box______ (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovell | Jan 20 11:02 | |
| *ChanServ gives channel operator status to acer-box______ | Jan 20 11:02 | |
| *acer-box____ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Jan 20 11:03 | |
| schestowitz__ | --------------------------------- | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | Re: HRI tools analysis report PDF | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | The one document I want to send is a research report from a 3rd party to Intel and was provided by an employee still there. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | xxxxxx is a friend of our community but... has a xxxxxxxx and really cannot lose his position. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | If there was info about me at all it could be traced back to xxxxxxx... | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | So, if you can refer to our interaction as "the source" or something... this is preferred. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | Hi. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | The full documents are now here for you, please do not share the link! | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | I'll remove these in 1 week, if you need it later, let me know. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | I would like to get you the full hri report - recommending ms/proprietary tools but sent a screenshot of the recommendation to partner with MS. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | If you want these a different way, please let me know. | Jan 20 11:35 |
| schestowitz__ | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-inexorable-rise-of-epo-oral.html?showComment=1611100461070#c3993037645599779983 | Jan 20 13:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The inexorable rise of EPO oral proceedings by video conference - The IPKat | Jan 20 13:20 | |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | I cannot but agree with “Proof of the Pudding”. If the EPO and its Boards of Appeal claim that they are at the service of its users, the BOAC should have at least published a statement saying how many replies were in favour and how many against the move towards OP in form of a ViCo. One can guess where the balance went. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | OP in form of ViCo are certainly useful during the pandemic, but all commentators are of the opinion of that it should be left to the parties to decide whether they want to have OP in form of a ViCo during the pandemic and/or in the future. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | Imposing OP in form of ViCo like it is done in first instance or that it should be left to the discretion of the BA, lacks any legal basis in the present EPC. Even the boldest interpretations of the EPC under Art 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties do not allow to come to the conclusion that mandatory OP in form of a ViCo have a legal basis. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | The “Travaux Préparatoires” show that there was thus unanimous agreement that oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal were meant to be proceedings in person. What applies before the BA applies mutatis mutandis to the first instance. That it implies travel and corresponding costs was not a deterrent to render OP in person mandatory. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | When it comes to interpret the EPC, the boards often resort to the VCLT. It even came up in the famous G 3/19 decision. Why not here? | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | On top of this, when the members of the deciding body can sit miles apart in different locations, it boils down to fully dematerialise the EPO. This is a change of the EPC which cannot be decided by the head of the EPO or even the AC. This needs a Diplomatic Conference! By sending examiners and board members to their home countries, the head of the EPO is hoping to save salary costs and education allowances. At what cost for the | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | users? | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | Do you want an EPO were its staff sits miles apart? What is this for a kind of office? It boils down that divisions and boards will be reduced to the examiner in charge or to the rapporteur. The provision of a separate channel of communication between the members of the deciding body does by no means replace an active discussion when all are sitting in the same room. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | That technical progress can help in reducing travel is acceptable, but reducing OP to seeing the other party or the deciding body merely on pictures the size of a large post stamp is something which is not everybody’s liking. If you are happy with it, fair enough, but this should not be imposed. If the parties agree and the deciding body sits together at the same location, why not having Ops in form of ViCo. Otherwise my answer | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | is a simple no. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | For the rest, just have a look at the comments published in Kluwer Blog under the heading “Response to EPO consultation: Don’t impose oral proceedings by videoconference” of December 2d, 2020: | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/02/response-to-epo-consultation-dont-impose-oral-proceedings-by-videoconference/ | Jan 20 13:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Response to EPO consultation: Don’t impose oral proceedings by videoconference - Kluwer Patent Blog | Jan 20 13:20 | |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-inexorable-rise-of-epo-oral.html?showComment=1611097955253#c8447565069040293101 | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 13:20 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The inexorable rise of EPO oral proceedings by video conference - The IPKat | Jan 20 13:20 | |
| schestowitz__ | @ Anonymous of 19.01.2021-10:47GMT | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | Nobody forces a Japanese applicant/inventor to come to Munich! If he is not residing in a member state he has to take a professional representative under Art 134 EPC. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | That Japanese applicants are not very flexible when it comes to the wording of claims (the same can be said about US applicants) is nothing new and certainly not a reason to force everybody to have OP in form of a ViCo. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | It is question of trust between the applicant and the professional representative. The later should also be technically competent. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | Those are the last reasons to restrict oral proceedings to ViCos. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | The Paris Convention has taken care when it comes to avoid preferential treatment for local applicants: any foreign applicant cannot be treated differently than a local one. The foreign one needs a representative in a member state as there is only judicial cooperation within the member states. But this is not disadvantaging foreign applicants! | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | It is the attempt for representative’s firms not located in Munich to get a piece of this cake! No more no less! See the CIPA paper. | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 13:20 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:53] <xxxxxx> are you sure it was a good idea to broadcast that RMS still has a strong voice in the FSF? | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:54] <xxxxxx> it seemed to me that RMS didn't want this out there | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:54] <xxxxxx> he wanted to pull strings from the shadows | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:54] <xxxxxx> beacuse he sees that he doesn't have a "presentable" character | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:54] <xxxxxx> in his eyes | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:54] <xxxxxx> well, what that means to him, is that people on the left don't like him, and he only wants to appeal to people on the left | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:55] <xxxxxx> he is very much with them on everything else | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:55] <xxxxxx> and i don't know how this will affect the plan | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [22:55] <xxxxxx> but it's out there, what's done is done | Jan 20 14:08 |
| schestowitz__ | [23:16] <schestowitz__> RMS is OK with me supporting the FSF, which I do | Jan 20 14:13 |
| schestowitz__ | [23:28] <xxxxxx> i know, it's just that he wanted to rule from the shadows | Jan 20 14:13 |
| schestowitz__ | [23:28] <xxxxxx> and now it's public | Jan 20 14:13 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:21] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Lisa Maginnis was fired over this | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:21] <schestowitz__> maybe Oliva also | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:21] <schestowitz__> secrecy is an issue | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:21] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> i mean, she leaked something | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:22] <schestowitz__> what good is leaking only few can see? | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:22] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> she leaked that the FSF, in the 2000s, rejected a transgender woman from getting a job there on the grounds that she is "ugly, and would upset the rest of the employees" | Jan 20 14:17 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:23] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> i know | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:23] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> but this was the event | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:24] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> the transgender woman that was rejected in the 2000s was Julia Longtin, btw | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:24] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a great mistake on the part of the FSF, she would have done a great job | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:30] <schestowitz__> Maginnis is no longer in the FSF, so I can say publicly what you told me, somehow, subjected to obfuscation | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:31] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> okay but let me clarify: Leah Rowe asked for John Sullivan to be removed, but i have found no evidence he was involved in the rejection of Julia Longtin | Jan 20 14:26 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> i'm trying to remember the names... Ruben something | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> he was a sysadmin | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and the other also had a spanish name | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ruben Rodriguez | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> that's one | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:32] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> i think Leah publicly named them | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | [15:33] <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> so i could find the post | Jan 20 14:30 |
| schestowitz__ | Anon, | Jan 20 20:31 |
| schestowitz__ | No one is saying that there are no relative advantages to VICOs. Cost and ease of participation are certainly two advantages that are hard to dispute. But are those the only metrics that should be used to determine how OPs are conducted? I would suggest not. This is not least because effectiveness of communication is lower with VICOs compared to in-person proceedings. It depends upon one's perspective whether the reduction is only | Jan 20 20:31 |
| schestowitz__ | slight or instead quite significant. Nevertheless, it is (also) undeniable. | Jan 20 20:31 |
| schestowitz__ | Some clients may not be concerned about the fact that VICOs reduces the effectiveness of their representative's oral submissions to the EPO (and hence potentially reduces the persuasiveness of their oral arguments). However, others will be PROFOUNDLY concerned about this ... especially if the OPs in question relate to an opposition against a patent of great commercial significance. | Jan 20 20:31 |
| schestowitz__ | So perhaps it would be better to allow the parties to choose their preferred mode of conducting OPs? Because in-person proceedings are preferable from the perspective of the right to be heard, my view is that, at least after the end of the pandemic, they should be the default mode (in case not all parties agree to VICOs). Why force parties to use VICOs if they truly do not wish to do so? | Jan 20 20:31 |
| schestowitz__ | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-inexorable-rise-of-epo-oral.html?showComment=1611149975537#c4305224231689360185 | Jan 20 20:31 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The inexorable rise of EPO oral proceedings by video conference - The IPKat | Jan 20 20:31 | |
| schestowitz__ | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-inexorable-rise-of-epo-oral.html?showComment=1611153879014#c4567266324218109171 | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 20:33 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The inexorable rise of EPO oral proceedings by video conference - The IPKat | Jan 20 20:33 | |
| schestowitz__ | I am anon of 1047. I would like to point out that I picked Japan as a distant time zone with a different language (hence inconvenience), not as a reference to any general habits of Japanese applicants. | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | If you are talking about opposition/appeal, then I agree that the applicants/inventors are of lesser importance (so much is just law based, and plenty of time to ask for tech input during written proceedings). Also, UK firms are happy to fly for OD/BOA because the budget is normally high enough to justify it, so less need to worry about different national interests. | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | But for the ED OP, I think the applicant/inventor is very helpful. Especially as new issues are raised all the time, and the ED is normally receptive to scientific input. We are their representatives and act for the client. I disagree with the "they must simply trust us, and we know the science". | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | There is no patent attorney who understands the invention, the literature, and the underlying scientific complexities better than the inventor. There is no patent attorney who knows the commercial situation better than the applicant. They need us because, without knowing the law, they cannot hope to address the issues. But they are very helpful to us if we ask them the right questions. "The ED is now saying that x=y, do you know | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | of a paper to dispute that". "This amendment would be valid, but would not encompass X. Is X a realistic work around?" | Jan 20 20:33 |
| schestowitz__ | " | Jan 20 20:33 |
| *gry has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) | Jan 20 23:25 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.