(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *Shock_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Nov 21 01:09 | |
| *Shock_ (~shOkEy@85-238-77-96.pool.digikabel.hu) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 01:10 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@hswhwmtaqib2u.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 03:55 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 10:28 | |
| *rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 21 15:16 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (connection closed) | Nov 21 15:16 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@26xeswvceibae.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 15:16 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-va5.ra8.a7lnth.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 15:16 | |
| *rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 21 15:21 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 21 15:21 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@26xeswvceibae.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 15:21 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@freenode-va5.ra8.a7lnth.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 15:21 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 21 17:49 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Nov 21 17:49 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@freenode-310501.g0d7.dtdf.mc4289.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 17:50 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@xrrqsey9gh7ve.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 17:50 | |
| *jacobk has quit (connection closed) | Nov 21 21:50 | |
| schestowitz | > no they're not showing any back and forth with the imposters. i'm just | Nov 21 23:04 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | > looking for proof of their email address they're using so I can look into it | Nov 21 23:04 |
| schestowitz | Just to remove any misunderstandings, the email claiming to be from you is 100% fabrication? A lot of effort went into forging the email headers to make it seem like it came from your domain and from California if so. | Nov 21 23:04 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/should-you-need-at-least-4-year.html?showComment=1700495869539#c418245641981833181 | Nov 21 23:45 |
| *TechBN has quit (connection closed) | Nov 21 23:45 | |
| *TechBN (~b0t@iijacan2vrgta.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Nov 21 23:45 | |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell-Failed to load module HelloWorld. Reason: Not found! | Nov 21 23:45 | |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell-Module HelloWorld has been removed until restarted! | Nov 21 23:45 | |
| schestowitz | "A lot has already been said about the requirements to become an qualified representative, but I would like to add my two pence on the discussion.<br /><br />I do not know whether the conditions have changed at the EPO, but the rule to admit candidates for a job as examiner, was to have at least the qualifications required to be an examiner at the national patent monopoly office in the country of origin. <br /><br />In this respect, | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | British candidates had an advantage. A BSc was enough to be hired as examiner at the UKIPO. Some have a Master’s degree or even a PhD, but this was never a requirement. <br /><br />A German candidate had to have a Master’s degree delivered by a University. This excluded German candidates having a mere Fachhochschulabschluss (FH) which was not considered as a University degree but only a degree from a University of Applied scien | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | ce. The difference does not seem as strong nowadays as it was in the past. On top of the degree, the DPMA required 5 years of experience in industry, whereby the time for a PhD could count as professional experience. <br /><br />In France, for instance, a so called Baccalaureat + 5 years studies at university level was needed. This corresponds to the present Master level valid in the whole of the EU. <br /><br />Claiming that it is | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | better for an epi member to have a PhD is simply ridiculous. Like at the EPO, the qualification required to become a national patent monopoly representative should be enough. Anything above is good to take, but not mandatory. <br /><br />Why on top of this a candidate to the EQE should have one year of practical experience remains a mystery. No justification has been given for this requirement. One year is at the same time too much | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | and too little. The job of representative is the job in which experience plays a very big role and being successful at the EQE is only the first step. Spending one year somewhere in industry does not necessarily improve the quality as qualified representative. <br /><br />It is once the EQE passed that matters become serious. Why should the holder of a PhD be better at the job than a representative not holding a PhD? What is also | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | needed is not to be a specialist at the same level as an inventor. What is needed is a good scientific education and the capability to correctly analyse in depth as well to come to synthetic view in order to devise a claim as broad as possible within the framework of the original application. The rest is unnecessary and not really helpful. <br /><br />The fact that examiners are only first hired on a 5 years contract pushed the EPO | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | to actually lower the language requirements. In the past the EPO used to give in house language courses. Nowadays, if a candidate does want to see its initial 5 year contract to be renewed, he has to show a better level in the other two languages. The help at the EPO is not what it used to be. <br /><br />By merely offering first 5 years contracts, the number of foreign candidates has been drastically reduced at the EPO. Which perso | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | n, with some years of experience, sometimes having a family and children, will want to come to the EPO with the perspective to be on the dole after 5 years and by coming to Germany or The Netherlands severing all links with the social security and pension system in his country of origin? This also has a negative effect on the quality at the EPO. At least a representative will in general stay in its country of origin.' | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | "It's interesting that you see it like that. That's certainly not what I think. As someone who has worked in both the UK and Germany I don't feel there is more of a "class" problem in the UK than there is in Germany, for example. Indeed, according to the OECD, the challenges to social mobility seem to be much more significant in Germany than in the UK (https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/Social-mobility-2018-Overview-MainFi | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | ndings.pdf).<br />The article from the epi D&I Working Group represents a view from a range of EPC countries and it is a view that I support wholeheartedly.<br />The animation of UK commentators against the proposed change to the degree level required to sit the EQE isn't necessarily due to a bigger problem in the UK, but could equally well be due to a greater *recognition* in the UK of an issue that exists in many (if not all) | Nov 21 23:45 |
| schestowitz | countries of the EPC. In my view, arbitrarily excluding some graduates from qualification as an EPA does nothing to increase the quality of patents or patent monopoly attorneys, but does unnecessarily reduce the opportunity for some to have an excellent professional career. I haven't seen any reasoned justification for making the profession more exclusive in this way." | Nov 21 23:45 |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell- ( status 403 @ https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/Social-mobility-2018-Overview-MainFi ) | Nov 21 23:45 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.