Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Sunday, September 20, 2020

Join us now at the IRC channel.

schestowitz 20 00:02
-TechrightsBN/ | ● NEWS ● #TheNation #scotus ☞ Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘My Mo... | MindsSep 20 00:02
schestowitz"Yeah right."Sep 20 00:02
schestowitz 20 00:03
-TechrightsBN/ | As wildfires rage, climate experts warn: The future we we... | MindsSep 20 00:03
schestowitz"No it is not."Sep 20 00:03
schestowitz 20 00:03
-TechrightsBN/ | EXCLUSIVE-Trump to block U.S. downloads of TikTok, WeChat... | MindsSep 20 00:03
schestowitz"Good"Sep 20 00:03
schestowitz 20 00:03
-TechrightsBN/ | Trump to ban US TikTok and WeChat app store downloads on ... | MindsSep 20 00:03
schestowitz"Good"Sep 20 00:03
schestowitz 20 00:04
-TechrightsBN/ | " #Python 3.9.0 is almost ready. This release, 3.9.0rc2,... | MindsSep 20 00:04
schestowitz"It better be backwards compatible grrr"Sep 20 00:04
schestowitzTo seem to have given up on thatSep 20 00:04
schestowitz 20 00:04
-TechrightsBN/ | A Conservative Lawyer Is Holding Voter Fraud Meetings Wit... | MindsSep 20 00:04
schestowitz"Lol. This might as well be satire. "A Conservative Lawyer" is free to do what he likes. I'm certain we could find a "liberal" or "progressive" lawyer doing exactly the same things."Sep 20 00:04
schestowitz 20 00:05
-TechrightsBN/ | Raising Fear - | MindsSep 20 00:05
schestowitz"Don't read into the FUD, its not desparation"Sep 20 00:05
schestowitz 20 00:05
-TechrightsBN/ | Whistleblower Report Alleges Military Police Sought Use o... | MindsSep 20 00:05
schestowitz"Hopefully next time they will be able to use it on the communist agitators. Move to venezuela if you hate this country, the rest of us have shit to do. "Sep 20 00:05
schestowitz 20 00:05
-TechrightsBN/ | How emotionally intelligent leaders handle 6 difficult si... | MindsSep 20 00:05
schestowitz"What Nikola would say about that?"Sep 20 00:05
schestowitz 20 00:06
-TechrightsBN/ | The Dishonest and Misogynistic Hate Campaign Against J.K.... | MindsSep 20 00:06
schestowitz"So what? Weirdo. "Sep 20 00:06
schestowitz 20 00:06
-TechrightsBN/ | As Trump Sows Chaos, Sanders and Schumer Call on McConnel... | MindsSep 20 00:06
schestowitz"Lol, the irony of the guy who was cheated out of winning the DNC nomination and went quietly now wanting hearings on election integrity is delicious."Sep 20 00:06
schestowitz 20 00:07
-TechrightsBN/ | The True Facts About the Oregon Fires, With a Video Provi... | MindsSep 20 00:07
schestowitz"That’s interesting 🧐 "Sep 20 00:07
schestowitz 20 00:07
-TechrightsBN/ | "He's Describing a Massacre": Trump Touts Herd Immunity A... | MindsSep 20 00:07
schestowitz"What a moron , he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Don’t worry though the right wing will provide another excuse for him without even researching “herd immunity”. "Sep 20 00:07
schestowitz 20 00:07
-TechrightsBN/ | “Let Me Finish My Question” -- English Professor Repriman... | MindsSep 20 00:07
schestowitz"Trump never stands with the people, he lies about everything he does. While is fat cat friends are making billions off the general public. This is the guy you want running a country? "Sep 20 00:07
schestowitz"he's racist like me, so I like him and support him..."Sep 20 00:07
schestowitz 20 00:08
-TechrightsBN/ | Copyright Companies Want Memes That Are Legal In The EU B... | MindsSep 20 00:08
schestowitz"Aren't all memes are illegal over sec18?"Sep 20 00:08
schestowitzDepends on resolutionSep 20 00:08
schestowitz 20 00:08
-TechrightsBN/ | Linux blah blah blah insecure = basically, "man bites dog... | MindsSep 20 00:08
schestowitz"why they don't applied grsecurity patches when they could ?"Sep 20 00:08
schestowitz 20 00:09
-TechrightsBN/ | 'Yet Another Alarm Bell': Ice Chunk Twice Size of Manhatt... | MindsSep 20 00:09
schestowitz"So the next large sheet is in the middle to crumble. Within the next 10-20 years ,  well the coastal cities are first to go. If you look at satellite photos you can see the rising ocean waters."Sep 20 00:09
schestowitz 20 00:09
-TechrightsBN/ | Lawmakers Demand Probe into 'Horrifying' Allegations of N... | MindsSep 20 00:09
schestowitz"Why?  Oh yeah......hysterectomy prevents abortion @@"Sep 20 00:09
schestowitz 20 00:09
-TechrightsBN/ | Why Don't They Call You a Genius? You Don't Have a Billio... | MindsSep 20 00:09
schestowitz"Sure, being a genius doesn't make you rich, but plenty of wealthy people are extremely intelligent. Tech magnates are just popularized this way because they sell things the average person does not understand. Even Gates with his questionable "genius" is likely smarter than the author of this article."Sep 20 00:09
schestowitz 20 00:10
-TechrightsBN/ | Federal Court Blocks 'Nakedly Partisan' Trump Effort to E... | MindsSep 20 00:10
schestowitz"Sep 20 00:10
schestowitz"ILLEGAL immigrants."Sep 20 00:10
schestowitzRecord corrected.Sep 20 00:10
schestowitz"Sep 20 00:10
schestowitz 20 00:10
-TechrightsBN/ | Indigenous Stewardship of the Land Would Help to Prevent ... | MindsSep 20 00:10
schestowitz"These are set fires."Sep 20 00:10
schestowitz 20 00:11
-TechrightsBN/ | God, Guns, Bats, and Patriotism - | MindsSep 20 00:11
schestowitz"Label the “proud boys” and “patriotic prayer group” as domestic terrorist.  Being a veteran myself these guys are idiots. Don’t give them attention."Sep 20 00:11
schestowitz 20 00:11
-TechrightsBN/ | 'A Matter of Life and Death': After 175 Years, Scientific... | MindsSep 20 00:11
schestowitz"I’m not Biden fan but can’t stand Trump. Climate change is real , and the scientists are sick of an administration that doesn’t use any logic or common sense. Doesn’t believe in scientific proof. This country is going backwards in test scores. "Sep 20 00:11
schestowitzInternational standing and imageSep 20 00:11
schestowitz 20 00:12
-TechrightsBN/ | Confused by Section 230? So Is Donald Trump | MindsSep 20 00:12
schestowitz"Now can I can create thousands of user accounts on bigotry, white supremacy, racists, right wing sites and say whatever I want right? No recourse will be taken. I can also teach others post video how to take down, deface, exploit, harvest on any social network , forum website right?"Sep 20 00:12
schestowitz 20 00:12
-TechrightsBN/ | Kenyon College Students Are Organizing the First Campus-W... | MindsSep 20 00:12
schestowitz"Good for them, we need more unions anyway."Sep 20 00:12
schestowitzIt may be the only thing that can slow down/stop encroachment of powerSep 20 00:12
schestowitz"Covid has a 99.96% risk of survival. Here's a tip: probably don't go to the hospital for something you are most likely going to survive. If you have risk factors, or are elderly - then we can talk about relief for your medical bills."Sep 20 00:14
schestowitz 20 00:14
-TechrightsBN/ | 35.5% of the world's "active" #covid19 cases are now in t... | MindsSep 20 00:14
schestowitz 20 00:14
-TechrightsBN/ | "I'd be surprised if anyone even remembers 9/11 anymore b... | MindsSep 20 00:14
schestowitz"Trump 2020!! Vote in person so your vote counts."Sep 20 00:14
schestowitz"Dr of what?"Sep 20 00:14
schestowitz 20 00:15
-TechrightsBN/ | Will Trump Pardon Edward Snowden? - | MindsSep 20 00:15
schestowitz"It's no coincidence they're keeping him until after the election too."Sep 20 00:15
*rianne_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)Sep 20 00:51
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 00:51
schestowitzRe: Playing it SafeSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Is is not entirely difficult to discuss these issues without bringing upSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> those terms.Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> What gets me is that you seem think those terms are a serious issue. IfSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> someone thinks a matter is important to discuss, and people areSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> scrutinising the vocabulary instead of the intent behind it, there isn'tSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> a real conversation-- only policing.Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Maybe I'm too far to one side on this, but I thought intent was the mostSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> important part. The people who are censor-happy invent ways to beSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> offended. Why not have a list of fairly innocuous forbidden terminology,Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> which we add to whenever Trump is an asshole?Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Part of this is that I'm not paying attention to a lot of this drama.Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> You may not believe it, but I'm not. I Just Don't Care. I care about aSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> lot of important things, I DO NOT care how to make these people happySep 20 01:00
schestowitz> who are going through whatever people say with a fine-tooth comb. ThoseSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> people are a pox on society, they're anti-intellectual, they'reSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> anti-society. They claim to be progressive. What do I always say? Fuck em!Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> They may try to monopolise certain progressive causes that don't botherSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> me, causes I may even support to a degree-- but IMO the emotionalSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> blackmail, the lying, the thought-policing, puts these people farSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> outside of anything I consider progress. So I ignore them when possible,Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> I condemn them when they get out of hand, and I try to focus onSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> progressives with Better Shit To Do.Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> IMO this is beneath you. But not entirely, I already said sometimesSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> there's a fine line you have to walk to do the best for YOUR cause. I'mSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> not making fun of you for that, it's gotta suck, my only serious adviceSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> is "don't let them make this fucking bullshit a full-time job on top ofSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> things that actually do matter".Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> Also, I don't think your take on the person is accurate. I think you'reSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> letting fake progressives tint your glasses a certain a way. But that'sSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> just a hunch, I mean-- my only job in this is to mention it, then letSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> you worry about it. If you don't, you don't. If you're happy paying moreSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> attention to the letter than the substance, it seems out of character,Sep 20 01:00
schestowitz> but we definitely all do weird shit now and then. I know of noSep 20 01:00
schestowitz> exceptions to that rule.Sep 20 01:01
schestowitzFor effective advocacy we still need to refrain from associating - rightly or wrongly - with particular elements. I'm not saying DT is "x", I just think that it would distract from many articles we did if we aired terms like "SJW".Sep 20 01:01
schestowitz> I guess what I'm getting at here (and I wasn't sure when I startedSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> talking about this, I'm just coming to this now) is that he seems like aSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> really decent guy. And over a couple of words that I'm clearly not asSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> sensitive to as you are (I really think you're overreacting, but thatSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> doesn't mean I'm right about that) what I'm sensing from the words ISep 20 01:04
schestowitz> read was something like:Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> "Hmm, we might not want to take a relevant clip about free software fromSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> that one, because of other content"-- I mean I can get that if he saidSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> "KILL THE JEWS" earlier in the video, not if he talks about SJWs orSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> whatever it was that you found objectionable. I don't think that's whereSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> he's coming from. I don't exactly get why you do, either.Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> But now it sounds like you might not want to take a relevant clip aboutSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> free software from anything he says, because of a couple words. MaybeSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> I'm reading too much into this, which is why to my ear it sounds likeSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> he's getting cancelled here over alleged "dog whistles"-- it just soundsSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> so much like what happened to cancel rms. While I don't think rms is aSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> bigot of any type, and qualified people have defended him, he may (orSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> may not) be "more careful" or "less of a liability" (or more of one, dueSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> to cancellation efforts) and I guess this sounds more like a 180 for youSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> than anything else. I mean it strikes me as a lot more odd than anythingSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> said in the video.Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> Sep 20 01:04
schestowitz> So that's where my confusion is coming from. But I'm probably wrong, andSep 20 01:04
schestowitz> that's certainly cool. I simply thought it was a really odd thing toSep 20 01:05
schestowitz> read. I hope your connection to Alpine doesn't turn into "New"Sep 20 01:05
schestowitz> Techrights, like the "New" FSF. I would never expect that to happen. I'dSep 20 01:05
schestowitz> be pretty surprised. But then the world is very peculiar these days.Sep 20 01:05
schestowitzI don't have "connection to Alpine". The sysadmin/host just happens to use and be part of Alpine. I know very little about Alpine.Sep 20 01:05
*oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 20 01:29
*oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 01:29
schestowitz 20 07:07
-TechrightsBN/ | Copyright is for losers … and so are trade marks: Banksy’s EUTM declared invalid due to bad faith - The IPKatSep 20 07:07
schestowitz"Ths reminds me that, for a period in the 1990's, many issues of the UK Official Trade Mark Journal contained pages of trade mark applications in numerous classes consisting of reproductions of several of Beartrix Potter's paintings of characters such as Peter Rabbit that appear as illustrations in her books. Copyright in her works was about to expire a couple of years later, but in the event amendment to UK Copyright legislation Sep 20 07:07
schestowitzextended the term of her copyright before its anticipated expiry date. Prima facie a passing resemblance to one of the situations disapproved in the decision."Sep 20 07:07
schestowitz 20 07:08
-TechrightsBN/ | UK patent exams: Essential information for candidates released and FD4/P6 survey results - The IPKatSep 20 07:08
schestowitz"Staplers are banned from this year's examinations... FD4 must be about staplers this year."Sep 20 07:08
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzNot for me to comment, having passed the exams in the late 1970's (at the 3rd attempt) but it does seem a bit like "shooting yourself in the foot" to publish a document billed as a "model answer" to illustrate the amount of detail required to pass the Paper, when the "model" demonstrates that it would take a full 8 hours to crank out one's own answer at anything approaching that level of detail.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:09
schestowitzRepliesSep 20 07:09
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 14:52:00 BSTSep 20 07:09
schestowitzThe candidate model answers of previous years are at least truthful and evidence what is reasonably possible for candidates under exam conditions. By comparison, the unpaid volunteer's model answer was NOT conducted under exam conditions. Basing your exam technique on this will guarantee failure, simply due to time pressure. Publishing this as a "model answer" is dishonest and confusing for those candidates putting in honest work Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzand time to pass the exams and join the profession. Publication of this "model answer" is more than "shooting yourself in the foot", it is dishonourable.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 16:12:00 BSTSep 20 07:09
schestowitzIf you read previous examiner's comments there are statements like:Sep 20 07:09
schestowitz"Good con and inf... ran out of time"Sep 20 07:09
schestowitz"Tried to hard to get the model answer..."Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzBy PEb publishing these answers they are encouraging people to provide the level of detail required to get the model answer, but this has been shown in the past to result in a fail because you can't give the amount of detail required in the time. Dont just take my word for it, the Examiner's say so themselves. I dont see why this generation should be required to achieve something that previous generations couldn't?Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzMy best advice is to ignore the model answers, like a P6 examiner told me, you will have a good "con and inf" section but won't finish. You need to get to the end, even if you miss out a lot of stuff. That is the only way to pass. Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzand this is why it should be (controlled) coursework... so people could actually give a solution they were proud of, stating the points they knew, providing a summary of the turning points etc... instead of now which is getting to the end at all costs.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:09
schestowitzAnon Y. MouseTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 12:51:00 BSTSep 20 07:09
schestowitzAs far as I can recall, candidates sitting the exams under normal circumstances are not accompanied to the toilet if they need to go during the examination. Why, then, should that be required this year?Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzIt also seems bizarre to me to permit candidates to use the "scan to PDF" function on a mobile phone but then to prohibit the use of email unless sitting the exam in the presence of a designated contact. In many cases the most efficient way of transferring a file from a phone to a computer may be to send it as an email (particularly if the phone and computer will not talk to one another by other means such as Bluetooth or Airdrop). Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzOtherwise, a candidate will need to plug their phone into the computer and manually transfer the file. Why should candidates at home be allowed (possibly required, if no other means of scanning are available!) to do this but not to access their emails for the same purpose with appropriate supervision from the remote invigilator?Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:09
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:11:00 BSTSep 20 07:09
schestowitzGreat to see lots of peoples responses in the survey.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzInteresting that Mercer is publishing something in October, get ready for the cover up in 3...2....1.... Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzTo be fair, what did you expect from a guy that sells courses on how to pass FD4... Does anyone think it would be in his interest to make an exam that didn't require ridiculous levels of exam technique to pass? I wonder if he identified himself as being conflicted like all the invigilators have to?Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzMore to the point, why did CIPA commission him? Very poor decision in my opinion. Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzThe review should have shone a light on the dark areas instead, and this is just a theory, i imagine the aim will be to increase the PEB monopoly.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:09
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:30:00 BSTSep 20 07:09
schestowitzI have read the survey comments, very interesting. Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzThere is one comment along the lines of, university is not acceptable because it would price out people that aren't in international/national firms. Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzFor the record i don't think university is the correct option, but i disagree with the reasoning. Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzNowadays each final exam is £500, each JDD is £500, so for sitting all the PEB exams, a JDD course for each exam, a few resits...its now over 5k. Plus travel + hotels etc.Sep 20 07:09
schestowitzThis is the price of a law degree at a university. The idea PEB is a low cost option is complete rubbish. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzThis is something that IPREG have previously pointed out with respect to foundations. In that a JDD course for each foundation and the exam fee costs the same as a university course. Apart from there is no quality assesment for the JDD course, and the teaching lasts 1 day, as opposed to a few months. So its worse value for money, and there is no way anyone (e.g. IPREG) can check whether these training courses satisfy QAA guidelines Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzetc. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzWith foundation-sitting firms graduates don't know when they sign up that they are signing up for a training program that is completely unregulated.... honestly, i think this is terrible.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:10
schestowitzRepliesSep 20 07:10
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:44:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzRemember a university course is not just a financial cost, but also a time cost. If you are part of a team of 1 or 2, or even 3 or 4 in house IP representatives, then being out of the office for the 3 months of the foundation courses is not an option... And I can't imagine the advanced exams will be any less time. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzCoursework may be an alternative, but it isn't a financial consideration, but a resources / time pressure consideration. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzLast time I raised this (ironically with Mr Mercer) his view was tough luck... Which doesn't bode well for this review to be honest.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 14:05:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzYes, but the trainee still needs to learn the same amount whether you go through foundations or a university course.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzSo the decision is whether the firm takes the hit (less chargeable hours, away for 3 months) or the trainee takes the hit (keeps billing for those 3 months, most study done in own time). Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzA company obviously prefers for their trainee to be billing for 3 months when they should actually be studying, doesn't mean this should be allowed to continue. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzThe amount of people that pass all 5 foundations in one year is 15%. This statistic is never reported, but highlights the lack of support/time given by firms for foundations. Imagine if only 15% of queen mary passed, there would be outrage. But firms dont mind this, they dont give study time anyway, so its not like its a bigger time commitment, not part qualified so no pay rise, can leave because they dont have any qualifications Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzthat the market wants... whats not to love.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 14:42:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzYes, i think it would be fine if the trainee got those "3 months" back, spread across the year for example (so small departments could function), but my (first-hand) experience is that foundations are a way for firms to avoid committing to any substantial training. Both in terms of resources (told to find most of the information yourself using the syllabus and past papers) and in terms of time (my firm gave 1 day off per foundation Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzto study) so kept working and billing for those 3 months. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzNot sure how that is particularly fair considering, on signing the training contract you are not told that you will be given 5 days off to study for a qualification that is supposed to take 600 hours?Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzLa vache qui ritTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 18:18:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzMany IP solicitors at the top UK IP solicitors' firms (and, I think, some IP barristers) take the Oxford postgraduate diploma in intellectual property law and practice, even though it is not a required qualification for IP practitioners in those professions as far as I am aware. It would be interesting to know what they feel they get out of it, and whether - if the powers-that-be conclude that a university course could or should Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzreplace some or all of the qualifying routes - that course might provide any useful insights.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzHowever, I agree with the comments above that a university course is not the way to go. Not only does this raise the accessibility issues mentioned above but it is also vulnerable to being closed down by the university if it is no longer felt to be sustainable (e.g. due to low student numbers, inadequate income, etc) as happened with the old Manchester University certificate.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzA more fundamental problem is that the interests of academics do not necessarily overlap sufficiently with the needs of practising attorneys. Full-time academics have research interests and expertise which are often - almost by definition - quite far removed from everyday considerations and tend to operate more at the level of policy, legal theory, etc. Plenty of law academics have never actually practised law, and even if they haveSep 20 07:10
schestowitzdone so, they will not necessarily have practised before the EPO, UKIPO, EUIPO, or the intellectual property courts of this country. (This was certainly true of the teaching staff at the university where I took the CIPA-approved postgraduate certificate some years ago.)Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzThis is well-illustrated by an anecdote that I also mentioned in my comments to the Mercer review: shortly after qualification I went along to a series of (public) IP law seminars at a highly-ranked university. In the Q&A at one such seminar I ventured to raise a point based on practical experience of the topic under discussion. I remember well the tone of disdain in the speaker's voice, as he replied "Ah, I assume that you must be Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzsome sort of *practitioner*..." - not a light-hearted joke, but rather genuine annoyance that a mere practitioner had dared to sully his pristine theory!Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAll of this is by way of saying that, if we *do* move to a university-administered qualification system, great care needs to be taken that it does not close off access to the profession; that it is not at risk of abrupt termination or interruption; and, crucially, that its contents are both relevant to the needs of mere practitioners such as ourselves and delivered by staff with appropriate knowledge and experience. This latter taskSep 20 07:10
schestowitzwould surely be a huge burden on CIPA/IPReg to administer and I find it difficult to envisage how universities would be willing to hand over such a degree of control to an external organisation with needs that do not necessarily align well with the interests of their academics.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 11:23:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzI agree I don't think university is the right option. In relation to FD4 specifically, there also seems to be a view that IV is still an important skill in the UK profession and that some kind of practically oriented test should continue. It also sounds like a coursework style exam is the way many people would like to see things go. How difficult would it be for a group of firms to work together to get a coursework-style IV exam Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzapproved by IPReg? Perhaps this would break the PEB monopoly and encourage a rethink if it started to hit them in the pocket.Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzMy personal belief is that an exam is unnecessary for IV. Rather than examining IV, perhaps just including a requirement that trainees give (under supervision) a number of IV opinions as part of their training in the first 4 years before qualifying. I think some will protest on the grounds that some firms don't have sufficient IV work to give to their trainees, but then perhaps that just illustrates that IV isn't the important skillSep 20 07:10
schestowitzsome make it out to be in the profession. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 12:13:00 BSTSep 20 07:10
schestowitzAs far as i understand it, most people do not want to hand over all control to a professor who researches sufficiency for a living. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzInstead, i think they want a professional education provider setting the framework for the exam, ensuring the content doesn't go further than is necessary, a proper complaints procedure that isn't just there to milk money of trainees. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzWhen you look at FD4 past papers in the last few years.. 2018 the infringer was in 3 lines of size 10 text on a full A4 page no diagram, 2019 dealing with entitlement issues. Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzIn both these cases i think it would benefit from a professional education provider saying to the Examiners, what are you trying to test? and how does hiding the infringer in the text help this? How does bombarding a candidate with entitlement issues help infringement and validity?Sep 20 07:10
schestowitzAt the moment the Examiners are able to run a muck adding more and more content and issues that go far beyond fitness to practice. At the moment the exam is not even tested to time and marked? How is this acceptable when i've paid thousands over the years to sit these exams?Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousFriday, 18 September 2020 at 16:43:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitz"Instead, i think they want a professional education provider setting the framework for the exam, ensuring the content doesn't go further than is necessary, a proper complaints procedure that isn't just there to milk money of trainees."Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzCompletely agree with the above comment. Couldn't have put it any better. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitz"In both these cases i think it would benefit from a professional education provider saying to the Examiners, what are you trying to test?"Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAgain, totally agree, that is exactly what should be happening, and what clearly isn't happening.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 13:32:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzA small proposal: if it is considered desirable for the exams to more closely resemble actual practice - and since the exam is supposed to assess fitness for purpose rather than student excellence (ie, it is more like a driving test than an academic qualification), I think most would prefer this to be the case - the most beneficial rethink would be on the matter of closed book/open book.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAn exam assessing fitness to practice as an attorney which requires you to not have your legal texts to hand when assessing a complex problem is like a driving test where you have to do the whole thing without ever using your mirrors. Not only does it not resemble actual practice, but it imposes constraints which directly conflict with good practice.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:11
schestowitzRepliesSep 20 07:11
schestowitzThe Malpractice PracticeTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 15:00:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzOr a coursework based assessment against a set of defined competencies. For too long firms have relied on a conveyer belt of trainees who are put forward for examination with little training in the hope that some pass and can be billed out at a higher rate, those that repeatedly fail either pay for resits (or their own training) or are shown the door. This is exemplified in the bad firms, you know who you are, who chop the bottom 20Sep 20 07:11
schestowitz of trainees and backfill with cheap replacements. Time to stop the something for nothing culture and actually invest in training and development of all trainees who enter the profession, perhaps through a CIPA delivered series of courses.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzRonTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 17:18:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzThe model answers for 2018 provide a clear example of how fashions change. Both answers break up the claims into numbered sub-paragraphs. When I did this in a mid-1990's P6, that year's examiners' comments explicitly said that this approach was calculted to annoy the examiner. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzThe 2013 answer uses a table in landscape format. Is the use of WORD's table function permisdible/possible using the on-line system? Difficult to do such a table in portrait format. In previous years the instructions to candidates have required you to write on alternate lines, implying portrait format. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 17:48:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzCan confirm, over half the trainees from the last 2 cohorts have now left my firm. Never to return to being a patent attorney. All clever, all phds etc. Decided that they didn't want to spend the best years of their life revising for exams, the reward being you get to copy foreign associate instructions and submit it on your own. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzI don't get why people revel in the fact that exams have low pass rates (the hallmark of P6). They are supposed to test fitness to practice (i.e. provide advice to a lay person). So what they are actually boasting about is that the training you will get doesn't provide you with the skills to help a member of the public? How is this anything to be proud about? Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzFair enough if the exams were to qualify as an "elite" patent attorney vs. a normal patent attorney, but that isn't the point of these exams.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 08:32:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzWhich are these allegedly terrible firms? I think we need a list so that aspiring trainees can know where not to apply.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 20:49:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzI know myself and my firm have been highly critical of FD4 and also the advanced papers. We do not think it is fit for the modern firm and modern day training of patent attorneys. Mercer must report accurately. I think there is an opinion that advanced exams should be done in coursework or university assessment. However, what should be clear is that many do not want to the system as it operates in now.Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:11
schestowitzAnonymousTuesday, 15 September 2020 at 21:21:00 BSTSep 20 07:11
schestowitzThis is a comment in the linked survey:Sep 20 07:11
schestowitz“I passed P6 fifteen years ago. What the examiners look for seems to have changed over time, if the PEB's model P6 answer is anything to go by. I would not regard someone who prepared the model answer as being fit to practice - the model answer looks like something a patent searcher would draw up. In my day, it was the norm to prepare answers that read like a court's judgement, which was a far better test of fitness to practice.â€Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzAn individual who passed the exam 15 years ago asserts that the volunteer (someone inextricably linked to the current assessors of those fit to practise) is not fit to practise, and is on par with a patent searcher. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzThe same individual asserts that the prose/style required 15 years was that akin to a court judgment and thus indicative of fitness to practise. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzMy own observations:Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzIf a member of the profession equates the model answer to that of a patent searcher, who does not have to sit FD4/P6, what does that say to those who work in the profession and can’t pass? What an endorsement of both the current examiners and candidates. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzI have looked at the sample pass scripts for 2004 and 2005 and to me they do not resemble a court judgment so the examiners of those years seemingly weren’t requiring this type of answer. Aside from this, surely only judges and barristers need to worry about providing such an answer style. If so, then why do judges and barristers not set and take FD4/P6? Do judges consider all issues in an I&V case and write up the judgment in 5 Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzhours?Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzFrom the above, It is clear to me that the fundamental problem with FD4/P6 is that “fitness to practise” is a completely nebulous assessment criteria that varies from person to person. Assessment of nebulous criteria is unlikely to result in satisfactory outcomes. Even if it could be determined that “fitness to practise” has a defined criteria, the focus would then turn to whether the current exam can be used to determine Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzwhether the criteria is in fact assessed. Presenting the answer in a required format is unlikely to be determinative. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzUndefined assessment criteria does not enable a credible assessment, irrespective of how the answer is presented. What a truly disappointing state of affairs. Sep 20 07:11
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:12
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 16:19:00 BSTSep 20 07:12
schestowitz1) P2: Include one compulsory 25 mark question on advice relating to I&V issues. Increase the exam time from 4 to 5 hours. Most importantly, make it open book.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitz2) P6: Move to coursework where trainees are actually taught how to carry out I&V/FTO analyses rather than how to pass an exam. Perhaps taught by looking at real cases (one mechanical and one chemistry) over the course of two/three days. Followed by an assignment (with the choice of mech or chem) which trainees have to turn in in 2 weeks. The course can be accredited and run by CIPA.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitz3) Make it compulsory to have a trainee logbook which logs all the various type of work to which the trainee has been exposed and a checklist setting out the minimum requirements before any advanced papers can be taken. Firms needs to be held accountable for the quality of training.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:12
schestowitzRepliesSep 20 07:12
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 17:56:00 BSTSep 20 07:12
schestowitzApproved.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:12
schestowitzAnonymousWednesday, 16 September 2020 at 17:47:00 BSTSep 20 07:12
schestowitzBetween 46:00 - 47:00 minutes of the "FD4 for trainees" lecture ran by the previous head of the PEB and the head of the CIPA education committee they were contrasting the difference between Problem-solution approach and Windsurfing/Pozilli. Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzAfter explaining how inventive step is crucial component to becoming a patent attorney, very very important you know what its all about, not fit for practice if you don't apply it properly.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzThe differences between PSA and Pozolli being: "It's just not combining documents" 46:29 - head of the education committee......."yep" - Ex - head of the PEB.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzSeriously are these people fit to practice? Do they know how to apply inventive step?Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzDocuments can be combined in pozolli. See MOPP 3.43 for factors to consider when combining documents. Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzLions led by donkeys. Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzWho thinks this is worse than last year when the current chief examiner of FD4 said a claim can lack novelty but still be inventive?Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:12
schestowitzAnonymousThursday, 17 September 2020 at 09:29:00 BSTSep 20 07:12
schestowitzDoes anyone know if the 5 min screen breaks are going to be enforced? If so, do we have to sit in front of the computer with our eyes closed or can we get up, go to the loo, etc?Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzReplySep 20 07:12
schestowitzRonThursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:40:00 BSTSep 20 07:12
schestowitzAs I have noted in previous posts on a different, but related thread, I passed P6 on my 11th attempt, having experienced an inverse correlation between my real-life involvement with I&V issues, passing after having attended a tutorial with one of the examiners to find out what they were looking for and giving them what they wanted.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzMy real-life experience was that it can be a bit of a lottery, and no amount of careful analysis guarantees a succesful outcome. My first exposure to I&V was when I was an Examiner with the UK Patent Office, where I was once one of a three-man panel hearing an inter partes infringement action. When this was appealed I attended the court proceedings as an observer. The outcome was something of a surprise to all, as the judge based Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzhis decision on construing a particular term to mean X: both parties (and the Patent Office in the original hearing) had agreed that it meant Y, so neither its meaning nor its relevance to I&V had been argued. Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzSeveral of the fellows in the industrial practice where I was employed while qualifying had been involved in various reported cases. One observed that it is vital in any litgation, being seen as "the good guy" can be as important as having an elegantly-presented case, and there did seem to be more than a grain of truth in that.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzI don't know what the solution is. Handling I&V issues certainly can be an important part of professional practice, and a bad outcome for client can have serious consequences. In one case I was involved in, while the matter was eventually settled out of court (almost at the steps of the court), the threat of legal action had been enough to put off potential customers, resulting in that division of the company ceasing trading. But Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzthe scenario and the procedures adopted by the legal team bore only a passing resemblance to model I&V questions and answers.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:12
schestowitz 20 07:12
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:12
-TechrightsBN/ | Nine years after Premier League v. Murphy, Austrian Supreme Court revisits football screening in pubs - The IPKatSep 20 07:12
schestowitzI am afraid that this post includes some material inaccuracies. There were two separate referrals from the English Courts which were dealt with in the CJEU ruling. One was the referral from the Divisional Court which was dealing with effectively Mrs Murphy's appeal against a criminal conviction. The other was from Kitchin J. (as he then was) in the civil proceedings between FAPL and QC Leisure and certain publicans. It is certainly Sep 20 07:12
schestowitztrue that Mrs Murphy's conviction was overturned as a result of the CJEU ruling. However, another result of the CJEU ruling was the finding that publicans using personal decoder cards (i.e. those without a commercial subscription) infringed copyright by communicating various copyright works included in the FAPL broadcasts to the public. The copyright works in question included but were not limited to films. So the fact that the CA Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzdismissed FAPL's appeal regarding s.72 did not exonerate any publican from infringement of copyright in the other works included in the broadcasts. Moreover, that appeal had nothing to do with Mrs Murphy's case.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzThe CA found that the film exception in s.72 was incompatible with the InfoSoc Directive, which led eventually to the repeal of that part of s.72.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzThe end result of the FAPL litigation was that any publican using a personal decoder card to show FAPL matches in a pub committed and commits infringement of copyright.Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzFurthermore, the Austrian Court did not reach 'the opposite result'. Although the short summary of the Austrian judgment does not give much detail, it appears to be the case that it was the inclusion of action replay films in the live broadcast which were the works protected by copyright - just as in the FAPL case, and with the repeal of the film exception in s.72, exactly the same result would happen in the UK. It is not at all Sep 20 07:12
schestowitzclear that the Austrian Court acknowledged that the live footage of a football match attracts copyright protectionSep 20 07:12
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:12
schestowitz 20 07:13
-TechrightsBN/ | Nine years after Premier League v. Murphy, Austrian Supreme Court revisits football screening in pubs - The IPKatSep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzMany thanks for your detailed comment and insight. You are absolutely right to mention that the CJEU case was the result of two different referrals, only one of which related to Ms. Murphy. And thanks for pointing out that I may have misunderstood the scope of the Court of Appeal decision or its relation to CJEU Murphy, I will have another look at that. Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzOn the interpretation of what counts as communication to the public, the Austrian court indeed concurred with the CJEU (without quoting it once by the way). Nonetheless, unless your reading of the grounds of the Austrian decision is different from mine, the Austrian court indeed seems to have considered that the footage of the match itself is a protected work under copyright law (and not merely the action replay films). The CJEU at Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzthe time focused on the (more controversial) issue of whether the match itself is a protected work and needed to (artificially?) identify some protected works in the footage in order to have a copyright case in the first place (opening sequence, graphics and pre-recorded highlight films). I understand the Austrian Supreme Court's grounds to the effect that what happens behind the camera (such as choices of angle, framing, light, Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzedits, inserting slow motion repetitions, etc.) is more relevant to the qualification of a copyrighted work than what happens in front of it. If my reading is correct, I would not disagree - although I must disclose that I may be overly influenced by my own (non-EU) national copyright law.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz 20 07:13
-TechrightsBN/ | The mirage of AI invention - nothing more than advanced trial and error? - The IPKatSep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzDear Attentive Observer, when an algorithm is being trained it recognises patterns (for example the levels of Genes 1 to 500 which correlate with cancer). Such patterns are somehow definable mathematically, for example by a complex weightings system, Bayesian analysis, random forest etc. The job of the neural network is to get to the pattern. It has a system that is able to identify patterns which a human would find very difficult Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzto see (but not impossible of course). The neural network does with little help from humans once running. The human presses the button and gives no further direction to how to find the pattern. The algorithm can use many different tricks to look for an incredibly high number of patterns. It is difficult to define systematically what the algorithm is doing because a lot of trial and error is happening as the algorithm tries things Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzand then optimises approaches. I agree this could all in a sense be seen to be pre-programmed. However in what sense is the human not pre-programmed either by its previous knowledge or its DNA?Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzUnless the essential difference can be identified between what the algorithm does and what we do, we should not discriminate. Any difference that is found needs to be critically looked at to make sure it is not simply arbitrary and reflective of some discrimination we have deep down against AI. We are now deciding how we will classify AI in relation to ourselves, whether it has rights, can vote, have ownership, become a priest, etc.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzThis is an important decision to get right, I think Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz 20 07:13
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzNeither peer review nor patent examination is without flaws. As a patent attorney working closely with inventors in universities and small companies, it seems to me that some patent examiners could also benefit from a more realistic view of how the research process, and science more generally, works. It can be frustrating to face a patent examiner who has decided that they are more expert than the scientists actively working in the Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzfield of the invention. This attitude can present itself e.g. by putting absurd and unrealistic interpretations on the prior art that leave the experts baffled, insisting that terms are unclear when they are commonly used in the academic literature, and so on. The examination procedure then becomes a dialogue of the deaf with the examiner unwilling to listen to the opinion of the scientists and the scientists left bewildered or Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzoutraged by what they perceive as an inexplicable attitude or wilful misunderstanding. This happens in a minority of cases but a large enough minority to be noteworthy. In that aspect the examination procedure is perhaps worse than peer review, where for all its faults the reviewers are generally operating from the same baseline of knowledge and shared understanding of terminology as the authors.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzSo by all means let us have a dialogue between the patent examination process and the peer review process. But we shouldn't assume that the lessons to be learned flow only in one direction.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:13
schestowitzWhat an interesting article. Thank you, Rose.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzLike you, I find the debate with an Examining Division or TBA deeply satisfying. By contrast, I have found the peer review process somewhat frustrating. Mind you, my only experience of it (as writer) is with a piece I wrote on an aspect of patent law, for a peer-reviewed IPR journal. The reviewer was positive about my piece but then added a comment which gave me doubts whether the reviewer had grasped accurately the content of my Sep 20 07:13
schestowitztext. But as I had no idea as to the identity of the reviewer there was no opportunity to debate the issue with them.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzNaively, I had supposed that the peer review process is not "double blind". I had supposed that the reviewer is routinely given the name of the writer. You write that "ideally" the process is double blind but (at least in the case of legal journals) is it not normal for the reviewer to be given (by the publisher) the identity of the writer? Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzAnd then there are the patent law blogs. The ones here in Europe do not attract lively comment threads. Different in the USA. On Patently-O or Watchdog, my comments on patent law in Europe can attract lively criticism, both from commenters posting under a synonym and under their real name. Those comments are sometimes quite revealing. Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzI'm (more or less) retired. I wish more patent attorneys, younger ones, would join in the comment threads. But I guess they are too busy. A shame, i think. Do they not read the blogs at all? Or do they read them but then feel they have nothing to add? Or do they want to add something but feel less than adequately qualified to do so?Sep 20 07:13
schestowitzBut whatever the answer is, I'm optimistic that this high quality blog is read by many professionals within the "interested circles" and therefore generally a GOOD THING.Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:13
schestowitz" 20 07:14
schestowitz"A lack of time is certainly a factor, but my suspicion is that the perceived benefit is too low in light of the perceived risk. You could get in a lot of trouble with an employer for saying the wrong thing in a blog comment, so whatever you say better be worth it. Mostly there's very little benefit - better to keep your clever ideas for clients and your complaints for trusted confidants. "Sep 20 07:14
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:14
schestowitz 20 07:14
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:14
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:14
schestowitzAll patent examiners used to be scientists too. Even us ex-examiners were scientists once. Some years ago I started writing an article with a patent attorney friend and colleague which we called “Publish or Perish. (Or Patent?)” It went very much along the likes of this Kat's blog. (We really must finish it one day) Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzIt was further intended to show that academics don’t need to perish but can publish and patent, so long as they do it in the right order.Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzThere are numerous examples of academics having published first, and then filed a patent application to find their earlier publication comes back to haunt them.Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzPatent, then publish is the way to go - and both can be possibleSep 20 07:14
schestowitzEven so there is a need to be careful.Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzMany academics are not known for modesty. They will write “our observations suggested that…” “our calculations predicted that” etc….Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzIf they publish like this, even after filing the patent, they are saying, “it was obvious to try”, “it was obvious that we would succeed”.Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzIn other words the invention is obvious; not inventive, and a 3rd party could bring a revocation action and succeed!Sep 20 07:14
schestowitz(Thanks to Dr Eugene Sweeney for that cautionary tale)Sep 20 07:14
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:14
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:14
schestowitzAnother important difference between patent prosecution and peer review is the possibility to appeal. A more or less independent review of both the arguments of the applicant/writer and the examiner/reviewer has led in the patent world to harmonization and it is debatable whether the quality of the patent prosecution process is because of the (harmonization by) codification or because of the (harmonization by) the possibility to Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzappeal. Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzFurther, I agree with MaxDrei that providing comments to blogs or other online communications should be encouraged. Indeed, in the US based blogs this is more common (but it may also become dominated by a few persons and/or become nasty, such as with the patently-O blog), although there are several US blogs (such as PatentDocs) that also receive hardly any comment. Why this is, is questionable. Are these blogs not read anymore (Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzperhaps the younger attorneys are too busy with fee earning?) or are they being read, but are people to afraid of giving their opinion (as anonymous of 12:24 argues)? If the first is the case, the employers should realize that information gathering for their attorneys is essential to keep well aware of the ins-and-outs of the profession. If the latter is the case, employers should realize that if they want to have attorneys that areSep 20 07:15
schestowitzable to use arguments in their patent practice, argumenting in a polemic on a blog might be a good way to practice.Sep 20 07:15
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:15
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzWell perhaps it is just me. I only ever post anonymously as I don't see how the comments would benefit me professionally, but I can see how they might come back to haunt me! I've also never wanted to have a pseudonym as I don't trust it won't be traceable. Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzSo perhaps there are just a lot of silent readers? I expect IPKat's page view figures would have the answer there.Sep 20 07:15
schestowitzAnyway this is all a off topic really.Sep 20 07:15
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:15
schestowitz\Sep 20 07:16
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:16
schestowitz"Millipede, your comment prompts me to observe that the writer of this particular blog post, Rose Hughes is (if I understand it right) in house at Astra Zeneca. How about that then for an example of an enlightened employer? Here in this blog, Hughes writes first class items on EPO case law. She deserves high quality comment threads, I think. And her employer three cheers for giving her the freedom to contribute here."Sep 20 07:16
schestowitz 20 07:16
-TechrightsBN/ | Can academic peer-review learn something from patent prosecution? - The IPKatSep 20 07:16
schestowitz"MaxDrei, I can only agree..."Sep 20 07:16
schestowitz 20 07:19
-TechrightsBN/ | The mirage of AI invention - nothing more than advanced trial and error? - The IPKatSep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzDear Human rights,Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzI read your reply with interest. Finding of a correlation can be the basis of the invention and claims, and then indeed the claims will be inventive if that correlations is not obvious from the prior art.Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzDefining the original correlation is an action performed by a human being, at least in present times. And the latter will then be the inventor, and there is no doubt about it. In my humble opinion, the machine how intelligent it might be, will never find a correlation going further than the original correlation which has been defined .Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzI think its from there on, that our points of view diverge. To me, stating that "no human knows how a specific neural network performs" is giving the machine powers which it cannot have in view of the fact that the original correlation rule was defined by a a human being. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzTo sum it it up, in my view neural networks cannot as such be inventors.Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzI am not excluding inventorship from human beings, on the contrary. I just claim that neural networks cannot go further than that they were told originally, albeit in a quite an even more precise way as the neural network is adapted to go deeper in the analysis it is meant to perform. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzYou give powers to neural networks which by the mere way they are defined they cannot have. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzDear Human rights,Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzI agree to a certain extent that AI “can detect patterns in data which humans cannot”. One prime example is detection of malignancies in X ray pictures. What you however forget is that detecting patterns is only possible if a set of rules has originally been developed by a human being and training data have been selected in order to correctly train the correlation algorithm. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzThat with an increasing number of data, the detection can be improved is not at stake here. Such an automatic detection can thus be more accurate than by a doctor looking at hundreds of pictures whose attention will go down with time. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzHighly complex relationships can be found out, but it remains that at the beginning there was a human being has done some work by setting the original algorithm and defining the training data. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzI therefore fundamentally disagree with your view that such a machine can have “many 'mental' functions which are beyond what humans can do”. The start is done by a human being and not a machine. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzSuch a machine necessary fails when compared to a human. A human can play chess and go, may be not as accurately as a machine, but a machine set to play chess cannot play go or vice-versa. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzWhen for instance it comes to automatic driving of a car, it is a human being who has programed that in case of a potential collision with an unexpectedly crossing pedestrian will either kill the pedestrian or the passengers in the cars. The machine will only do what it has been told to do. This is point which should not be forgotten. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzTo me, the fact that in order to obtain a patent it is necessary not only to reveal the correlation algorithm but also the training data in order to comply with sufficiency requirements will lead to a relative small number of patent applications using AI. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzDear Attentive Observer. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzThank you for your comment. The test for inventive step is whether the claims are obvious from document D1. Say that the finding of a correlation is the basis of the invention and claims, then the claims will be inventive if that correlations is not obvious from the prior art. A human inventor can be told by another human how to look for correlations. The does not mean the human inventor can never be an inventor. Conveying a generalSep 20 07:19
schestowitzmethodology to the inventor does not negate their ability to become an inventor.Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzWhat a neural network does can clearly lead to inventiveness over the prior art. It can be the situation that no human knows how a specific neural network performs because it is very difficult to analyse what they are doing. Just because humans invented neural networks cannot be a reason to deny neural networks inventorship. All scientists are trained by other humans and receive much information from other humans that enable them toSep 20 07:19
schestowitzmake the invention. What they have received from humans is mostly irrelevant to determining their status as inventors.Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzThe rules you are constructing for ability to be an inventor could also exclude many human inventors, surely?Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzIf we are going to deny inventorship to AI, it must be for very clearly defined reasons, and humans must also be subject to the same rules. I cannot see specific rules which have been presented in any debate or article which would not also exclude certain human inventors for specific types of invention. Sep 20 07:19
schestowitz"Sep 20 07:19
schestowitzx 20 08:15
schestowitz# bill sezSep 20 08:15
-TechrightsBN/ | Bill Gates on COVID-19: "It's Mind-Blowing That We're Not Further Along!" - DER SPIEGELSep 20 08:15
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Sep 20 09:10
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)Sep 20 09:10
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 09:11
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 09:13
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Sep 20 10:34
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Sep 20 10:34
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 11:05
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 11:06
*moriah has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 20 11:48
*schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term)Sep 20 15:20
*schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 15:20
*ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitzSep 20 15:20
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Sep 20 16:18
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Sep 20 16:18
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 16:26
*liberty_box ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 16:28
*asusbox has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)Sep 20 16:53
*asusbox ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 16:54
schestowitz 20 17:38
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@thermicorp: @schestowitz tbh that's nothingSep 20 17:38
schestowitz2 days ago it was over 10k a minuteSep 20 17:38
schestowitz 20 17:39
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@gibikha: @schestowitz I like 4MLinux - it’s got some secret sauce that sets it apart. 20 17:39
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@gibikha: @schestowitz I like 4MLinux - it’s got some secret sauce that sets it apart. 20 17:39
schestowitz 20 17:39
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@mjg59: @schestowitz Still waiting for you to explain how I liedSep 20 17:39
schestowitz 20 17:39
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@wendycockcroft: @schestowitz Funny, that.Sep 20 17:39
schestowitz 20 17:40
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@glynmoody: this has to be the line: if republicans won't play cricket, neither should the democrats... 20 17:40
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz: ● NEWS ● #CommonDreams ☞ If #McConnell Packs the Court on Behalf of Minority Rule, Dems Must Expand and Reform It 20 17:40
schestowitz 20 17:40
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@brianfagioli: @schestowitz 3.x to 40.x will be kinda head scratching for some.Sep 20 17:40
schestowitz 20 17:43
schestowitz"Correct, it's just one deep cut of many."Sep 20 17:43
-TechrightsBN/ | Dick Smiths Fair Go Supporters: " Correct, it's just one …" - ActivismSep 20 17:43
schestowitz 20 17:44
schestowitz"Sep 20 17:44
-TechrightsBN/ | `Da Elf: " I've been watching thei…" - Mastodon 🐘Sep 20 17:44
schestowitz I've been watching their hacks for a decade now...Sep 20 17:44
schestowitzIt's like a Telegraph Fist in WWII, when SigInt knew who was transmitting by the timing and style. Same thing.Sep 20 17:44
schestowitzThe Middle Kingdom has a certain style and they don't veer much out of their lane.Sep 20 17:44
schestowitzI'll stop mixing metaphors now, it's getting ugly.Sep 20 17:44
schestowitz"Sep 20 17:44
schestowitz 20 17:45
schestowitz"solution is simple. mass testing. much cheaper than this mask and social distancing patch. do a mass audit of people that commune in public spaces. like that school. test every person there 2x monthly"Sep 20 17:45
-TechrightsBN/ | NixiИ: " solution is simple. mas…" - LinuxRocks.OnlineSep 20 17:45
schestowitz 20 17:45
-TechrightsBN/ | NixiИ: " in many nations governm…" - LinuxRocks.OnlineSep 20 17:45
schestowitz" in many nations governments enforce curfew to "flatten the curve.""Sep 20 17:45
schestowitz 20 17:45
schestowitz"don't know the story. Any link about those crimes?"Sep 20 17:45
-TechrightsBN/ | Arale Xan🎗️: " don't know the story. A…" -, xarxa social pels catalans d'arreu.Sep 20 17:45
schestowitz 20 17:46
-TechrightsBN/ | Reminder: Microsoft Profits From Crushing Protesters for Donald Trump | TechrightsSep 20 17:46
schestowitz 20 17:47
schestowitz"Sep 20 17:47
-TechrightsBN/ | mmu_man : " well, here we have the …" - Mastodon G3LSep 20 17:47
schestowitz well, here we have the Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights it seems… they get all the rights we as humans get deprived of :Sep 20 17:47
schestowitz- privacy,Sep 20 17:47
schestowitz- protection,Sep 20 17:47
schestowitz- free speech…Sep 20 17:47
schestowitz"Sep 20 17:47
*kierra (~quassel@ has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 21:45
*schestowitz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Sep 20 21:48
*schestowitz ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 21:48
*schestowitz has quit (Changing host)Sep 20 21:48
*schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 21:48
*ChanServ gives channel operator status to schestowitzSep 20 21:48
*kierra has quit (Quit: - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)Sep 20 21:51
*kierra (~quassel@ has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 22:07
*kierra has quit (Quit: - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.)Sep 20 22:12
*kierra (~quassel@ has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 22:13
*kierra has quit (Client Quit)Sep 20 22:14
schestowitz>> I don't have "connection to Alpine". The sysadmin/host just happens toSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> use and be part of Alpine. I know very little about Alpine.Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> thats true-- i meant "connection" in the most casual sense possible,Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> socially even. to the point where another choice of words would haveSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> made more sense, even. its not that you have a connection to it, onlySep 20 22:15
schestowitz> that someone you talk to does, and i considered that a possible factorSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> here-- again, only socially or very casually. it wasnt my intention toSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> overstate it.Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> i have nothing against alpine, in fact they do some things i stillSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> admire in a world where ive pretty much given up on the kernel they use.Sep 20 22:15
schestowitz> though im starting to become a bit sceptical of the project. onlySep 20 22:15
schestowitz> superficially, you know as well as i do that if i wanted to form aSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> serious opinion about them, id have to get a lot more familiar first. ifSep 20 22:15
schestowitz> it didnt come up routinely in the logs, id have even less to say about them.Sep 20 22:15
schestowitzI know little about them technically, except they choose simple and reliable components; that means no systemd among other things.Sep 20 22:15
*kierra (~quassel@ has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 22:16
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)Sep 20 22:23
*rianne_ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 22:24
*kierra is now known as moriahSep 20 22:43
*moriah has quit (Changing host)Sep 20 22:44
*moriah (~quassel@unaffiliated/kierra) has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 22:44
*rianne__ ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 23:05
*asusbox2 ( has joined #boycottnovellSep 20 23:05
*rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Sep 20 23:08
*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Sep 20 23:08
*rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)Sep 20 23:51
*liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)Sep 20 23:51

Generated by 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!